Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 37587

1See the Technical Support Document and 64 FR

51493 for more background information on the

District and its jurisdiction.

2Please note that many California Districts use

the term ‘‘Best Available Control Technology’’ with

a definition equivalent to LAER—please see the

TSD for additional information on the District’s

definition of BACT.

prohibited unless authorized by the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port Buffalo,

or the designated Patrol Commander.

Dated: June 21, 2001.

S.D. Hardy,

Commander, U.S. Coast Guard Captain of

the Port Buffalo, NY.

[FR Doc. 01–18106 Filed 7–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 217–0285; FRL–6995–7]

Final Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing limited

approval and limited disapproval of

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on September 28,

2000. This limited approval and limited

disapproval action will incorporate

Rules 2020 and 2201 of San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution District

(District) into the federally approved

SIP.

The intended effect of finalizing this

limited approval is to strengthen the

federally approved SIP by incorporating

these rules and by satisfying Federal

requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area New Source Review

(NSR) SIP for the District. While

strengthening the SIP, however, this SIP

revision contains deficiencies which the

District must correct before EPA can

grant full approval under section

110(k)(3). Thus, EPA is finalizing

simultaneous limited approval and

limited disapproval as a revision to the

California SIP under provisions of the

Act regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, and general rulemaking

authority.

DATES: This action is effective on

August 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal

and other supporting information used

in developing the final action are

available for public inspection (Docket

Numbers NSRR 00–13–CA and NSRR

00–16–CA) at EPA’s Region IX office

during normal business hours. Copies of

the District Rules and submittal are also

available at the following locations: San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg

Avenue, Fresno, California 93726.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Pike, Permits Office, (AIR–3), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901;

by telephone at (415) 744–1211; or by

email at Pike.Ed@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

II. Background

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

IV. EPA Final Action and Required

Corrections to District Rules 2020 and 2201

V. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Finalizing?

EPA is finalizing a limited approval

and limited disapproval of revisions to

the California SIP for District Rules 2020

and 2201. This final action replaces

previous New Source Review and

Permit Exemption Rules in the

following SIPs: Fresno County, a portion

of Kern County, 1 Kings County, Madera

County, Merced County, San Joaquin

County, Stanislaus County, and Tulare

County. Please see the Technical

Support Document for a complete list of

the Rules that will be replaced.

Rule 2020 was adopted by the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District on September 17, 1998,

and submitted to EPA by the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) on October

27, 1998. Rule 2201 was adopted by the

District on August 20, 1998 and

submitted to EPA by CARB on

September 29, 1998. This proposed

limited approval and limited

disapproval does not include sections

5.9 and 6.0 of Rule 2201, which specify

requirements for sources that request

permit modifications that also meet title

V requirements. The title V

requirements in Rule 2201 (based on a

prior version of Rule 2201) were given

interim approval as part of the District’s

title V operating permits program in

EPA’s April 24, 1996 rulemaking on that

program (see 60 FR 55517 and 61 FR

18083). The District has not submitted

any substantive changes to the title V

sections of Rule 2201 since that

approval.

II. Background

The background of this action is more

lengthy than our usual consideration of

SIP rules. Initially, on September 23,

1999, EPA proposed to grant full

approval of Rules 2201 and 2020 and

requested public comment (64 FR

51493). On October 25, 1999, EPA

received a comment (as explained in the

‘‘Response to Comments’’ section

below) from the California Unions for

Reliable Energy (‘‘CURE’’) contending

that full approval of a provision of Rule

2201 would be inconsistent with federal

law. After we evaluated the comment,

we determined that finalizing full

approval of Rule 2201 would be

inappropriate, but we also determined

that full disapproval would be

inappropriate because Rules 2201 and

2020 overall will strengthen the SIP.

EPA, instead, proposed on September

28, 2000, to grant Rules 2201 and 2020

limited approval and limited

disapproval (65 FR 58252). In our

September 28, 2000, proposal, EPA

stated that we would respond to the

comments submitted on both proposals

(i.e. the proposal to grant full approval

in September 1999 and subsequent

proposal to grant limited approval and

limited disapproval in September 2000)

when taking final action. In that

proposed limited approval and limited

disapproval, EPA concluded that

including Rules 2020 and 2201 would

generally strengthen the SIP. However,

EPA also identified the following

deficiencies in District Rules 2020 and

2201 preventing full approval. (See the

September 28, 2000, proposal at 65 FR

58252 for an additional description of

the necessary corrections to these two

rules).

1. The District must remove the

agricultural exemption from District

Rule 2020.

2. The District must revise Rule 2201

to provide a mandatory and enforceable

remedy to cure any annual shortfall and,

in the future, prevent shortfalls in the

District’s New Source Review Offset

Equivalency Tracking System.

3. The District must revise Rule 2201

to ensure that all sources meet the

Lowest Achievable Emission Rate

(LAER) 2 if they are allowed to make a

significant increase in their actual

emission rate.

37588 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

3As explained in the TSD, the District must

include a number of situations in the offset tracking

system that will be used to determine equivalency.

Rule 2201 differs from federal requirements because

it does not ensure that sources provide offsets that

are surplus of all regulatory requirements at the

time of use, rather than when an application to

generate offsets is filed. In addition, Rule 2201

allows some sources to determine offset

applicability and quantities based on potential to

emit. It also does not require that new major sources

offset their full permitted emissions, as they are

required to offset only the quantity of emissions

that exceed the District offset trigger. Please see

EPA’s Technical Support Document (TSD) for

additional information on the potential offset shortfalls in the District regulation that must be included

in the offset tracking system, as well as an

explanation of situations when sources are expected

to provide more valid credits under the District

regulations than under federal offset requirements.

III. Public Comments and EPA

Response

As noted above, we provided a 30-day

public comment period on our

September 23, 1999, proposal to grant

full approval of Rules 2201 and 2020.

EPA received comments from California

Utilities for Reliable Energy (‘‘CURE’’)

and Enron North America Corporation.

EPA also provided a 30-day public

comment period on its September 28,

2000, proposal to grant limited approval

and limited disapproval. EPA received

additional comments from CURE, and

comments from the Sierra Club. The

comments on our most recent proposal

and our responses appear below. (EPA

has provided responses to earlier

comments in a separate Technical

Support Document.)

CURE Comment #1

CURE’s comment on EPA’s September

2000 proposed limited approval and

limited disapproval contends that the

District’s Offset Equivalency Tracking

System (which aggregates and tracks

Emission Reduction Credits, or ERCs, on

an annual basis) is inconsistent with

federal law. CURE asserts that federal

law requires a demonstration that every

ERC is surplus to all other requirements

of the SIP before it can be used as a

valid offset. The District’s annual Offset

Equivalency Tracking System will

demonstrate that ERCs (which may have

been used previously during the year to

offset emissions increases) are surplus

to other requirements only at the end of

each year (on a 3 year rolling average).

EPA Response to Comment Regarding

Tracking System

EPA’s August 30, 1999, Technical

Support Document (TSD) for its

proposed full approval of Rules 2201

and 2020 discussed in detail the

statutory offset requirements in the

Clean Air Act and the reasons the

District’s Offset Equivalency Tracking

System, combined with the requirement

for a mandatory and enforceable remedy

for any shortfall, complies with the Act.

Generally, the Offset Equivalency

Tracking System allows the District to

demonstrate annually (at the end of

each year) that it has required sufficient

offsets that meet all federal offset

requirements. EPA has also agreed that

the District may include the prior two

years’ data (for a total of three years) to

demonstrate equivalency, as long as the

demonstration is still conducted

annually. During each of the first two

years of the tracking system, the District

must either provide a demonstration

using only the data collected since the

beginning of the tracking system, or

review all prior permitting actions

during the prior year or two to create a

three-year rolling average.

EPA’s 1999 TSD explains that on a

case-by-case basis the District’s ERCs do

not meet all federal requirements.3

Primarily, the District does not require

an individual ERC to be ‘‘surplus at the

time of use.’’ See, e.g., In Re: Operating

Permit Formaldehyde Plant Borden

Chemical, Inc., Petition No. 6–01–1

(Adm’r Dec. 21, 2000) (‘‘Borden Order’’),

at page 18 (‘‘Under Clean Air Act

section 173(c)(2), ERCs must be surplus

at the time they are used as offsets.’’);

Memorandum From John Seitz to David

Howekamp Re: Response to Request for

Guidance on Use of Pre-1990 ERC’s and

Adjusting for RACT at Time of Use

‘‘Seitz Memo’’), at p. 2 (‘‘At a minimum,

States must ensure a RACT level of

reductions on an area basis for all

applicable RACT requirements at time

of ERC use [footnote omitted] (e.g., at

the time of NSR permit issuance).’’) In

contrast, the District evaluates whether

ERCs are surplus to other legal

requirements at the time a source

submits an application to generate an

ERC—not when the ERC is used. During

the time between the initial application

to generate the ERC and application to

use an ERC, new legal requirements can

become effective. Those new

requirements affect whether the ERC, or

a portion of the ERC, is surplus.

CURE’s comment does not oppose

EPA’s conclusion that ERCs must be

surplus at the time of use. Rather,

CURE’s comment challenges EPA’s

conclusion that an annual equivalency

demonstration satisfies section 173 of

the Clean Air Act. CURE contends that

the Act requires the District to

demonstrate that an ERC meets all

federal requirements before any permit

relying on that ERC may be issued.

EPA does not believe that our

approval of the District’s Offset

Equivalency Tracking System allows the

District to violate any federal

requirement. The District must

demonstrate compliance with all federal

requirements, but only requires a

demonstration of compliance on an

aggregate basis at the end of each year

(on a 3 year rolling average). Thus, The

District must demonstrate that in the

aggregate the ERCs it allowed to be used

met or exceeded the surplus

requirements and all other federal

requirements. We have concluded that

the Act allows EPA discretion to

approve an annual demonstration of

equivalency (in the aggregate) with the

federal requirements, based in part on

the express language in section

173(c)(1)(A), stating:

by the time the source is to commence

operation, sufficient offsetting emissions

reductions have been obtained, such that

total allowable emissions from existing

sources in the region, from new or modified

sources which are not major emitting

facilities and from the proposed source will

be sufficiently less than total emissions from

existing sources (as determined in

accordance with the regulations under this

paragraph) prior to the application for such

permit to construct or modify so as to

represent when considered together with the

plan provisions required under section 7502

of this title) reasonable further progress (as

defined in section 7501 of this title);

(emphasis added)

The Seitz Memo, referenced above,

discusses in part the circumstances

under which a state could use ERCs

generated before 1990. The Seitz Memo

concluded that such ERCs could be used

if the state could ‘‘show that the

magnitude of pre-1990 ERC’s (in total

tonnage) was included in the growth

factor’’ and explicitly listed in

attainment plan inventories as such.

Seitz Memo , at p. 1. When the Seitz

Memo further considered whether ERCs

were required to be surplus at the time

of use, EPA stated that ‘‘States must

ensure a RACT level of reductions on an

area basis for all applicable RACT

requirements at the time of ERC use

[footnote omitted] (e.g. at the time of

NSR permit issuance).’’ Seitz Memo at

p. 2. EPA’s reasoning that we can

approve the District’s annual aggregate

offset equivalency demonstration under

the Act is further strengthened by our

approval of the RECLAIM Trading

Program for implementation of both

RACT and NSR in the South Coast Air

Quality Management District, based in

part on an offset tracking system that

operates on an aggregate basis (61 FR

64292).

Further support for EPA’s

determination that it can allow the

District to demonstrate equivalency on

an annual basis rather than for each

permit lies in the fact that the Clean Air

Act generally establishes pollution

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 37589

4For example, see Meng Zhaoyue and John H.

Seinfeld, ‘‘Time scales to achieve atmospheric gasaerosol equilibrium for volatile species’’,

Atmospheric Environment, Volume 30, Issue 16,

August 1996, Pages 2889–2900.

limitations on an annual basis for

purposes of permit issuance. For

example, section 182(c) defines major

sources in serious ozone non-attainment

areas based on the tons per year of

pollutants emitted, and section

182(c)(10) relies on this definition to

specify the quantity of ERCs that are

required. In addition, although ERCs

must be ‘‘enforceable’’ at the time of

permit issuance, the language of section

173(c)(1) requires that an ERC be ‘‘in

effect’’ when a major stationary source

is ready to commence operations. As a

practical matter, there is generally a

lengthy time between when a source is

permitted and when it commences

operations, providing the District with

time to conduct the equivalency

demonstration.

The District will demonstrate

annually that the offsets issued during

the year are surplus to emission

reductions required under the Clean Air

Act and the State Implementation Plan.

This demonstration does not change any

of the requirements in the Clean Air Act

for ERCs to be creditable. It is an

accounting exercise allowing the

District to demonstrate yearly that

sufficient creditable offsets have been

provided on an aggregate basis. EPA

believes that it is reasonable to interpret

section 173, as discussed in the August

26, 1994 memo and Borden Order, to

allow approval of an annual

equivalency demonstration.

CURE Comment #2

CURE also commented that EPA

should clarify that the District’s tracking

system applies only to ozone precursors.

EPA Response to Comment Regarding

Types of Pollutants Covered by Tracking

System

EPA disagrees with CURE because we

believe that Clean Air Act section 173

allows approval of an aggregate offset

tracking system for pollutants other than

ozone precursors to demonstrate that

‘‘surplus’’ requirements are met.

Although the August 26, 1994 memo

only specifically considered ozone

precursor emissions, the reasoning

underlying the memo was not limited to

one pollutant. Therefore, EPA believes it

is appropriate to extend the reasoning in

the August 26, 1994 memo to pollutants

contributing to nonattainment with

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

for particulate matter under 10 microns

in diameter, including precursors such

as sulfur oxides, provided the facts and

science concerning other emissions are

sufficiently similar to the science that

was considered for ozone precursors.

For instance, we believe that PM10

precursors in the San Joaquin Valley are

similar to ozone precursors in several

ways. These precursors must react with

other compounds in the atmosphere

before forming PM10, and continue to

react over time and distance as they

encounter other pollutants in the

atmosphere and different meteorological

conditions.4 Therefore, they tend to

have a Regional basis, rather than a

localized basis, because they are

generally dispersed outside of a

localized area before reacting to form

PM10 and can appropriately be included

in the aggregate system for

demonstrating compliance with EPA

offset requirements. In addition, the

District rule prohibits any individual

source from causing or making worse a

violation of an Ambient Air Quality

Standard (section 4.14.2). Sources must

perform modeling using EPA-approved

modeling guidelines (section 4.14.2) to

verify that the stationary source will not

cause or contribute to an Ambient Air

Quality Standard (except for certain

non-major sources that are below the

public notice thresholds). These air

quality and modeling requirements

include PM10 and PM10 precursors (in

addition to other pollutants).

In addition, the District has certified

to EPA (see December 7, 1999 letter

from Seyed Sadredin to Matt Haber) that

the directly emitted PM10 from

stationary sources is only about 0.22%

of the inventory of directly-emitted

PM10. For this reason, the exact location

of an individual stationary source either

generating or using offsets of directlyemitted PM10 is unlikely to directly

create or worsen a localized PM10 nonattainment problem in the San Joaquin

Valley. (Please note that the District

must ensure, via the offset tracking

system, that an amount of ‘‘surplus’’

PM10 and PM10 precursor offsets are

provided in the District that are at least

equal to the amount required under

federal NSR requirements.) Instead,

stationary sources are more likely to

emit precursors that contribute to an

area-wide problem and are

appropriately regulated in the aggregate

for the purposes of the offset tracking

system.

Further, the District does not expect

to adopt any new stationary source

control measures for directly-emitted

PM10 and believes that existing ERCs are

surplus of existing SIP requirements.

Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that

the District will need to make any

special showing in its annual

equivalency demonstration that the

offsets being used for directly emitted

PM10 are surplus. In other words, all of

the existing and generated offsets that

could be used for a new source of

directly-emitted PM10 should already be

surplus to SIP rule requirements.

Therefore, EPA believes that

demonstrating, via the offset tracking

system, that sufficient PM10 offsets are

obtained on a program-wide basis will

not cause or worsen any local air quality

violation in the San Joaquin Valley.

CURE Comment #3

CURE commented favorably on (1)

EPA’s decision not to finalize a full

approval of District Rule 2201 and (2)

the decision to repropose the action as

a limited disapproval based on the

District’s failure to include in Rule 2201

a specific and mandatory remedy for

any shortfall in the annual equivalency

system.

EPA Response

EPA agrees with this comment and is

finalizing the requirement supported by

the commentor.

Sierra Club Comment

The Sierra Club commented that it

supports EPA’s proposed limited

approval and limited disapproval. In

particular, the Sierra Club supports the

disapproval of the blanket exemption

for agricultural sources, and comments

that large agricultural facilities must be

required to comply with Clean Air Act

standards to achieve clean air goals in

the San Joaquin Valley.

EPA Response

EPA agrees with this comment and is

finalizing the requirement supported by

the commentor.

IV. EPA Final Action and Required

Corrections to District Rules 2020 and

2201

For the reasons explained above, the

comments submitted on our September

28, 2000 proposal have not changed our

evaluation of the rules as described in

our proposed limited approval and

limited disapproval. EPA is, therefore,

finalizing its limited approval and

limited disapproval of District Rules

2020 and 2201. Our final action is a

limited approval and limited

disapproval because the Rules contain

deficiencies and are not fully consistent

with Clean Air Act requirements, EPA

regulations and EPA policy. The District

must revise Rule 2020 and 2201 to

address the following deficiencies, as

described in our September 28, 2000

proposal:

37590 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

1. The District must remove the

agricultural exemption from District

Rule 2020.

2. The District must revise Rule 2201

to provide a mandatory and enforceable

remedy to cure any annual shortfall and

prevent future shortfalls in the District’s

New Source Review Offset Equivalency

Tracking System. This remedy must

take effect automatically if the District

does not demonstrate equivalency each

year. For instance, the District has

suggested requiring that major sources

and title I modifications meet federal

offset requirements, including using

credits that are surplus at time of use

and using EPA requirements for

calculating offset baselines and

quantities.

3. The District must revise Rule 2201

to ensure that all sources install LAER

if they are allowed to make a significant

increase in their actual emission rate.

(See 65 FR 58252 for additional

information.) For instance, the District

could adopt a rule amendment requiring

that these sources comply with LAER.

Because these rule deficiencies are

inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP,

EPA cannot grant full approval of these

rules under section 110(k)(3). Also,

because the submitted rules are not

composed of separable parts which meet

all the applicable requirements of the

CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3).

However, EPA is granting final limited

approval of the submitted rules under

section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

final approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. In order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is finalizing

limited approval and limited

disapproval of District rules under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the

CAA. It should be noted that the rules

covered by this final rulemaking have

been already been adopted by the

District. EPA’s final limited disapproval

action does not prevent the District or

EPA from enforcing these rules. Nothing

in this action should be construed as

permitting or allowing or establishing a

precedent for any future request for

revision to any SIP. 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.

The District will have 18 months from

the effective date of this final action to

correct the deficiencies delineated by

EPA in section IV above, to avoid

federal sanctions. See section 179(b) of

the CAA. The District’s failure to correct

the deficiencies will also trigger the

Federal implementation plan

requirements under 110(c).

V. 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 (Pub. L. 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,

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 17,

2001. 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,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 139 / Thursday, July 19, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 37591

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: May 25, 2001.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting 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)(260)(i)(B) and

(c)(266)(i)(B)(3) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(260) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 2020 adopted on September

17, 1998.

* * * * *

(266) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) Rule 2201 adopted on August 20,

1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–17705 Filed 7–18–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[AD–FRL–6997–8]

RIN 2060–AI34

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants for Chemical

Recovery Combustion Sources at

Kraft, Soda, Sulfite, and Stand-Alone

Semichemical Pulp Mills

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical corrections.

SUMMARY: Under the Clean Air Act

(CAA), EPA promulgated the national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for chemical

recovery combustion sources at kraft,

soda, sulfite, and stand-alone

semichemical pulp mills on January 12,

2001. The promulgated rule requires

new and existing major sources to

control emissions of hazardous air

pollutants (HAP) to the level reflecting

application of the maximum achievable

control technology. The technical

corrections in this action will not

change the standards established by the

rule or the level of health protection it

provides.

Section 553 of the Administrative

Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B),

provides that, when an agency for good

cause finds that notice and public

procedure are impracticable,

unnecessary, or contrary to the public

interest, the agency may issue a rule

without providing notice and an

opportunity for public comment. We

have determined that there is good

cause for making today’s rule final

without prior proposal and opportunity

for comment because the changes to the

rule are minor technical corrections

consisting largely of correcting

typographical errors and other misprints

and correcting minor errors in the rule’s

effective dates, are noncontroversial,

and do not substantively change the

requirements of the rule. In addition,

there has already been full opportunity

to comment on all of the provisions in

this Notice. Thus, notice and public

procedure are unnecessary. We find that

this constitutes good cause under 5

U.S.C. 553(b)(B) (see also the final

sentence of section 307(d)(1) of the

Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. section

7607(d)(1), indicating that the good

cause provisions of the Administrative

Procedure Act continue to apply to this

type of rulemaking under the Clean Air

Act).

Section 553(d)(3) allows an agency,

upon a finding of good cause, to make

a rule effective immediately. Because

today’s changes do not substantively

change the requirements of the rule, we

find good cause to make these technical

corrections effective immediately.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 19, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Docket No. A–94–67

contains the supporting information for

the original NESHAP for chemical

recovery combustion sources at kraft,

soda, sulfite, and stand-alone

semichemical mills and this action. The

docket is located at the U.S. EPA in

room M–1500, Waterside Mall (ground

floor), 401 M Street SW., Washington,

DC 20460, and may be inspected from

8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding legal holidays. A

reasonable fee may be charged for

copying.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Jeff Telander, Minerals and Inorganic

Chemicals Group, Emission Standards

Division (MD–13), Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA,

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina

27711, telephone number (919) 541–

5427, facsimile number (919) 541–5600,

electronic mail address

telander.jeff@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulated Entities. Categories and

entities potentially regulated by this

action are those kraft, soda, sulfite, and

stand-alone semichemical pulp mills

with chemical recovery processes that

involve the combustion of spent pulping

liquor. Categories and entities

potentially regulated by this action

include:

Category SIC code NAICS code Examples of regulated entities

Industry ................ 2611, 2621, 2631 ......... 32211, 32212, 32213 ... Kraft, soda, sulfite, and stand-alone semichemical pulp mills.

This table is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

regulated by this action. This table lists

the types of entities that EPA is now

aware could potentially be regulated by

this action.

To determine whether your facility is

regulated by this action, you should

carefully examine the applicability

criteria in § 63.860 of the final rule. If

you have questions regarding the

applicability of this action to a

particular entity, consult the person

listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section of this

document.

World Wide Web (WWW). In addition

to being available in the docket, an

electronic copy of today’s document

will also be available on the WWW