63188 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

is published in the Federal Register.

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

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

rule will be effective November 30,

2001.

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 February 4, 2002.

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 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 29, 2001.

L. John Iani,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

40 CFR part 70, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

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

2. In appendix A to part 70, the entry

for Alaska is amended by revising

paragraph (a) to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Alaska

(a) Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation: submitted on May 31, 1995, as

supplemented by submittals on August 16,

1995, February 6, 1996, February 27, 1996,

July 5, 1996, August 2, 1996, and October 17,

1996; interim approval effective on December

5, 1996; revisions submitted on June 5, 1996,

October 3, 1996, August 25, 1998, and May

24, 1999; full approval effective on November

30, 2001.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–30143 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 70

[NV 063–Pt70; FRL–7113–8]

Clean Air Act Full Approval of Title V

Operating Permits Programs; Clark

County Department of Air Quality

Management, Washoe County District

Health Department, and Nevada

Division of Environmental Protection,

Nevada

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to

fully approve the operating permits

program of the Clark County

Department of Air Quality Management

(‘‘Clark County’’), the Washoe County

District Health Department (‘‘Washoe

County’’), and the Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection (‘‘NDEP’’).

These three programs were submitted in

response to the directive in the 1990

Clean Air Act (CAA) Amendments that

permitting authorities develop, and

submit to EPA, programs for issuing

operating permits to all major stationary

sources and to certain other sources

within the permitting authorities’

jurisdiction. EPA granted interim

approval to Clark County’s operating

permits program on July 13, 1995, to

Washoe County’s program on January 5,

1995, and to NDEP’s program on

December 12, 1995. All three permitting

agencies revised their programs to

satisfy the conditions of interim

approval, and EPA proposed full

approval in the Federal Register on

October 10, 2001. EPA received

comments on our proposed approval of

Clark County’s program from Mr. Robert

Hall of the Nevada Environmental

Coalition, and on our proposed approval

of NDEP’s program from NDEP. After

carefully reviewing and considering the

issues raised by the commenters, EPA is

taking final action to give full approval

to the Clark County and NDEP operating

permits programs. EPA received no

comments on our proposed approval of

the Washoe County program and we are

also granting full approval to that

program in today’s action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

November 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the three program

submittals and other supporting

information used in developing this

final full approval, including the two

comment letters on our proposed

approval, are available for inspection

during normal business hours at the

following location: U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco,

California 94105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Albright, EPA Region 9, at 415–

972–3971 or at albright.david@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

section contains additional information

about our final rulemaking, organized as

follows:

I. Background on the Clark County, Washoe

County, and NDEP operating permits

programs

II. Comments received by EPA on our

proposed rulemaking and EPA’s

responses

III. EPA’s final action

A. Full Approval of the Clark County,

Washoe County, and NDEP Operating

Permit Programs

B. Effective date of EPA’s full approval

C. The scope of EPA’s full approval

D. Citizen comment letters

I. Background on the Clark County,

Washoe County, and NDEP Operating

Permits Programs

The Clean Air Act (CAA)

Amendments of 1990 required all state

and local permitting authorities to

develop operating permits programs that

meet certain federal criteria. Clark

County, Washoe County, and NDEP

submitted their operating permits

programs in response to this directive.

Because the Clark County, Washoe

County, and NDEP programs

substantially, but not fully, met the

requirements of part 70, EPA granted

interim approval to each program in

three separate rulemakings, published

on July 13, 1995 (60 FR 36070), January

5, 1995 (60 FR 1741), and December 12,

1995 (60 FR 63631), respectively. Each

interim approval notice described the

conditions that had to be met in order

for the programs to receive full

approval.

After Clark County, Washoe County,

and NDEP revised their programs to

address the conditions of interim

approval, EPA proposed to approve all

three title V operating permits programs

on October 10, 2001 (66 FR 51620).

II. Comments Received by EPA on Our

Proposed Rulemaking and EPA’s

Responses

EPA received two comment letters

during the public comment period. Mr.

Robert Hall, Nevada Environmental

Coalition, submitted a letter on

November 9, 2001 commenting on our

proposed approval of the Clark County

program and NDEP submitted a letter on

November 9, 2001 commenting on our

proposed approval of the Nevada

program. Copies of these letters are

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 63189

included in the docket for this

rulemaking maintained at the EPA

Region 9 office.

A. Letter From Mr. Robert Hall, Nevada

Environmental Coalition (NEC) Dated

November 9, 2001

Mr. Hall, president of the NEC, raised

numerous issues in his comment letter

with respect to DAQM’s implementation

of the Clean Air Act. EPA responds

below to those comments that are

germane to EPA’s proposal on October

10, 2001, to approve the Clark County

DAQM operating permits program based

upon the specific revisions made to the

Clark County program addressing their

interim approval deficiencies. However,

many of Mr. Hall’s comments relate to

non-title V air permitting issues or to

title V program issues that were not the

subject of EPA’s proposed action. Both

categories of comments are beyond the

scope of EPA’s proposed action, which

pertained specifically to whether Clark

County had corrected the issues

identified as deficiencies when EPA

granted the program interim approval.

In this notice, EPA is not responding to

comments submitted by Mr. Hall that

are beyond the scope of our present

rulemaking. Nevertheless, many of the

concerns raised by Mr. Hall are similar

to issues that he raised in his comment

letter submitted in response to EPA’s

90-day public comment period that

provided members of the public an

opportunity to identify and bring to

EPA’s attention alleged programmatic

and/or implementation deficiencies in

title V programs. (65 FR 77376,

December 11, 2000) The 90-day

comment period was made available as

part of EPA’s settlement of a lawsuit

over EPA’s extension of all title V

operating permits program interim

approvals. As described in section III.D

of this notice, EPA expects to respond

in writing to Mr. Hall’s earlier

comments by December 14, 2001.

Set out below are the relevant issues

raised by Mr. Hall in his comment letter

and EPA’s responses to the issues.

1. Program Submittal by the Clark

County Department of Air Quality

Management

Mr. Hall argues that because the title

V program interim approval was

originally granted to the Clark County

Health District and revisions to the

interim approved program were

submitted by the Health District, EPA

cannot grant full approval of the title V

program to the Clark County

Department of Air Quality Management.

Mr. Hall contends that the Clark County

program submittal is legally insufficient

unless the revised program is re-written

and re-submitted in the name of the

Clark County Department of Air Quality

Management.

As EPA noted in our proposed

approval of the Clark County title V

program (66 FR 51620, October 10,

2001), on August 7, 2001, the Governor

of Nevada officially transferred

responsibility for air quality

management in Clark County from the

County’s Health District to the newly

created Department of Air Quality

Management, overseen by the Board of

County Commissioners of Clark County.

In a letter dated June 21, 2001 to the

Clark County Commission, Governor

Guinn designates ‘‘the Board of County

Commissioners as the regulatory,

enforcement and permitting authority

for implementing applicable provisions

of the federal Clean Air Act, any

amendments to that Act, and any

regulations adopted pursuant to that Act

within Clark County.’’ The change is

essentially a shift in the organizational

location of the County’s air quality

management program and all rules,

regulations, and policies of the Health

District that comprise Clark County’s

title V operating permits program were

carried over to the new Department,

pursuant to the Governor’s designation.

In addition, the revised Clark County

title V operating permits program was

submitted by Allen Biaggi,

Administrator of the Nevada Division of

Environmental Protection, on behalf of

Nevada Governor Kenny C. Guinn, as

his appointed designee. Thus, the

commenter’s suggestion that the revised

Clark County program submittal was

made by an entity lacking the necessary

legal authority under part 70 is clearly

not the case. Moreover, DAQM has

assured EPA that it assumes all air

quality management commitments made

by the County’s Health District. For

these reasons, EPA believes it is

appropriate that full title V program

approval is granted to the Clark County

Department of Air Quality Management.

2. Clark County Regulations Are Not

SIP-Approved

Mr. Hall also comments that the

applicant submitted, as part of its

revised title V operating permits

program, local regulations that are not

approved into the Nevada State

Implementation Plan (SIP), and that the

submittal should have contained only

rules that are SIP-approved. The

commenter also claims that the

applicant does not identify the versions

(by date of adoption) of the rules

submitted.

The rules revised by Clark County to

address interim approval deficiencies

are Sections 0 (‘‘Definitions’’) and 19

(‘‘Part 70 Operating Permits’’). Mr. Hall

is correct that neither of these two rules

are currently SIP-approved. However,

Mr. Hall is mistaken in his belief that

the rules constituting an agency’s title V

operating permits program need to be

approved into the SIP. The

establishment of operating permits

programs is separate and distinct from

the state implementation plan process.

The statutory requirements for operating

permit programs are contained in title V

of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7661–7661f),

whereas the statutory requirements for

state implementation plans are

contained in title I of the Act (42 U.S.C.

7410). Nothing in the Act requires the

local regulations relied upon by

agencies for establishing permitting

programs under title V of the Act to be

incorporated into the state

implementation plans required under

title I of the Act.

Further, EPA’s regulations

implementing title V, which are

codified at 40 CFR part 70, require that

submitted operating permits programs

include identification of ‘‘the specific

statutes, administrative regulations, and,

where appropriate, judicial decisions

that demonstrate adequate authority’’ to

carry out all aspects of the program, and

that the statutes and regulations cited

‘‘shall be in the form of lawfully

adopted State statutes and regulations.

***’’ (See 40 CFR 70.4). While these

statutes and regulations clearly need to

be consistent with the requirements of

title V and 40 CFR part 70, they do not

need to be part of the State’s

implementation plan. EPA has

determined that the revisions Clark

County made to Sections 0 and 19 are

consistent with the requirements of part

70, which makes the revisions

approvable as part of Clark County’s

title V operating permits program.

As for Mr. Hall’s assertion that the

revised Clark County submittal does not

identify the versions of the rules upon

which it is based, EPA disagrees. The

revised Clark County program submittal

clearly identifies the versions of

Sections 0 and 19 (the two regulations

revised specifically to address interim

approval deficiencies) as being those

adopted by Clark County on May 24,

2001.

3. Clark County’s Definitions Rule

Mr. Hall further comments that Clark

County’s revised title V program

submittal contains a revision to a

regulation (Clark County Section 0—

Definitions) that was recently vacated

by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The

commenter claims that since the date of

EPA’s proposed approval of the Clark

County title V program (October 10,

63190 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

2001) is well after the date of the court’s

decision to vacate EPA’s approval of

Clark County’s Section 0 (August 29,

2001), EPA has erred in its proposal to

grant full approval to the Clark County

program, which relies, in part, on this

vacated rule section.

The commenter is correct that EPA’s

final rulemaking approving Clark

County Section 0 (‘‘Definitions’’) and

other rules into the Clark County

portion of the Nevada SIP was recently

vacated by the court. Mr. Hall is also

correct that the revised Clark County

operating permits program relies, in

part, on the definitions in Section 0.

However, the commenter is incorrect in

his evaluation of the impact of the

court’s action relative to the County’s

title V program. While the court did

vacate EPA’s approval of Section 0 into

the SIP, this action does not vacate

Section 0 as a valid Clark County

regulation. Section 0 remains valid and

legally enforceable by Clark County. As

noted in our response to issue 2 above,

EPA regulations require that the rules

comprising programs submitted for

approval under part 70 must be

enforceable by the State (or local entity),

not EPA, and must meet the

requirements of part 70. The Clark

County title V program was granted only

interim approval, in part, because the

definition of ‘‘applicable requirement’’

in Section 0 did not match the

definition in 40 CFR 70.3. EPA is now

granting full approval to the revised

Clark County operating permits program

because all of its interim approval

deficiencies have been fixed, including

Clark County’s modification of the

definition of ‘‘applicable requirement’’

in Section 0. Since Clark County’s

revised definition of applicable

requirement is consistent with part 70

and is contained in a rule (Section 0)

that is valid and legally enforceable by

Clark County, EPA believes that this

interim program deficiency previously

identified by the Agency has been fully

resolved.

4. EPA Unlawfully Extended Interim

Approval

The commenter also cites his belief

that the requirements of the CAA and 40

CFR part 70 were not met when EPA

extended interim approval of the Clark

County title V operating permits

program more than two years beyond

the August 14, 1995 initial interim

approval date. Mr. Hall further claims

that EPA is required to implement a

federal permitting program in Clark

County and to impose sanctions as set

forth in 40 CFR 70.10.

On August 29, 1997, EPA published a

final rule in the Federal Register

extending interim approval of operating

permits programs nationwide to October

1, 1998 (62 FR 45732). In further

rulemakings, EPA extended interim

approvals again, ultimately

promulgating a final rule on May 22,

2000 extending all operating permits

program interim approvals up to

December 1, 2001 (65 FR 32035).

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA requires in

pertinent part that ‘‘[a]ny petition for

review under this subsection shall be

filed within sixty days from the date

notice of such promulgation, approval,

or action appears in the Federal

Register.* * *’’ The sixty day window

for filing challenges to the current

interim approval extension closed on

July 21, 2000. Clearly, Mr. Hall’s current

claim that EPA unlawfully extended

interim approval of the Clark County

operating permits program and his

request that EPA impose a federal part

71 program and sanctions against Clark

County is not within the statutorilymandated timeframe for such appeals.

Moreover, a timely challenge to EPA’s

subsequent extension of all operating

permits program interim approvals was

brought in the Court of Appeals for the

D.C. Circuit against EPA, and a

settlement agreement resolving this

challenge was entered November 21,

2000, in Sierra Club and the New York

Public Interest Research Group v EPA.

A component of that settlement

agreement was that EPA would amend

40 CFR part 70 to clarify that all existing

interim approved programs expire on

December 1, 2001 and cannot be

extended. EPA is, therefore, acting in

accordance with existing regulations in

granting final title V operating permits

program approval to Clark County,

effective November 30, 2001, based on

Clark County’s revisions to their

program which adequately addressed all

interim approval deficiencies.

After carefully reviewing and

considering the issues raised by Mr.

Hall, EPA is taking final action to give

full approval to the Clark County

operating permits program.

B. Letter From Colleen Cripps, Bureau of

Air Quality, NDEP Dated November 9,

2001

NDEP submitted a letter commenting

on EPA’s October 10, 2001 notice, in

which the Agency proposed to take no

action on four rule changes made by the

State that were not required as

conditions for receiving full program

approval. Specifically, EPA proposed to

take no action on the State’s changes to

Nevada Administrative Code (NAC)

sections 445B.094, 445B.187, 445B.290,

and 445B.294 because EPA deemed

these changes to be unapprovable.

In its letter, NDEP requested that EPA

reconsider approval of sections

445B.094 and 445B.290 in our final

rulemaking. As noted in the technical

support document (TSD) for our

proposed action, EPA was concerned

that NAC section 445B.094 (the

definition of ‘‘major source’’) did not

provide a major source threshold for

PM10 sources in attainment areas nor in

PM10 nonattainment areas that are not

classified as ‘‘serious’’ because of an

exclusion in section 445B.094. NDEP

clarified in their comments that the

exclusion in section 445B.094 applies

only to particulate matter greater than

10 microns in size. Thus, there is no

exclusion for PM10, which is particulate

matter less than 10 microns in size.

EPA’s concern about NAC section

445B.290 (‘‘Class I–B application for

Class I operating permit; filing

requirement’’) was that it appeared to

not require certain nonmajor affected

sources to apply for a Class I permit.

NDEP’s comments clarified that when

section 445B.290 is read together with

the ‘‘Class I source’’ definition at NAC

445B.036, there is a clear requirement

that all affected sources apply for and

obtain Class I operating permits.

EPA agrees with NDEP that the

revisions to NAC sections 445B.094 and

445B.290 are consistent with the

requirements of part 70 and today’s

action grants approval to these two

additional changes as part of our full

approval of the NDEP operating permits

program.

III. EPA’s Final Action

A. Full Approval of the Clark County,

Washoe County, and NDEP Operating

Permit Programs

EPA is granting full approval to the

operating permits programs submitted

by Clark County, Washoe County, and

NDEP based on the revisions submitted

on June 1, 2001, May 8, 2001, and May

30, 2001, respectively. The revisions

submitted by the three agencies

satisfactorily address the program

deficiencies identified in EPA’s interim

approvals published on July 13, 1995 for

Clark County (60 FR 36070), January 5,

1995 for Washoe County (60 FR 1741),

and December 12, 1995 for NDEP (60 FR

63631).

In addition, EPA is approving, as a

revision to NDEP’s title V program,

several additional rule changes made by

the State, including the revisions

described in section II.B above to

sections 445B.094 (definition of major

source) and 445B.290 (class I operating

permit filing requirement) upon which

EPA had proposed to take no action. As

discussed in greater detail in the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 63191

proposal, EPA also approves a revision

to NAC section 445B.138, the definition

of potential to emit (‘‘PTE’’), based on

NDEP’s representations that it will

implement the PTE definition in a

manner that is consistent with judicial

decisions and EPA policies. In the

future, if NDEP does not implement the

PTE definition consistent with our

guidance, and/or has not established a

sufficient compliance incentive absent

federal and citizen’s enforceability, EPA

could find that the State has failed to

administer or enforce its program and

may take action as authorized by 40 CFR

70.10(b). Finally, EPA also finalizes the

other rule revisions listed in Table 1 of

EPA’s October 10, 2001 proposed

rulemaking.

B. Effective Date of Full Approval

EPA is using the good cause exception

under the Administrative Procedures

Act (APA) to make the full approval of

the Clark County, Washoe County, and

NDEP programs effective on November

30, 2001. In relevant part, the APA

provides that publication of ‘‘a

substantive rule shall be made not less

than 30 days before its effective date,

except—. . . (3) as otherwise provided

by the agency for good cause found and

published with the rule.’’ 5 U.S.C.

553(d)(3). Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the

APA provides that good cause may be

supported by an agency determination

that a delay in the effective date is

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary

to the public interest. EPA finds that it

is necessary and in the public interest

to make this action effective sooner than

30 days following publication. In this

case, EPA believes that it is in the

public interest for the program to take

effect before December 1, 2001. EPA’s

interim approval of the Clark County,

Washoe County, and NDEP programs

expires on December 1, 2001. In the

absence of this full approval of the

amended programs taking effect on

November 30, the federal program under

40 CFR part 71 would automatically

take effect statewide in Nevada and

would remain in place until the

effective date of fully-approved

programs. EPA believes it is in the

public interest for sources, the public

and the State and local permitting

authorities to avoid any gap in coverage

of the part 70 program, as such a gap

could cause confusion regarding

permitting obligations. Furthermore, a

delay in the effective date is

unnecessary because Clark County,

Washoe County, and NDEP have been

administering title V permit programs

for 6 years under an interim approval.

Through this action, EPA is approving

a few revisions to the existing and

currently operational programs. The

change from the interim approved

programs which substantially met the

part 70 requirements, to the fully

approved programs is relatively minor,

in particular if compared to the changes

between state and locally-established

and administered programs and the

federal program.

C. The Scope of EPA’s Full Approval

In their program submissions, Clark

County, Washoe County, and NDEP did

not assert jurisdiction over Indian

country. To date, no tribal government

in Nevada has applied to EPA for

approval to administer a title V program

in Indian country within the state. EPA

regulations at 40 CFR part 49 govern

how eligible Indian tribes may be

approved by EPA to implement a title V

program on Indian reservations and in

non-reservation areas over which the

tribe has jurisdiction. EPA’s part 71

regulations govern the issuance of

federal operating permits in Indian

country. EPA’s authority to issue

permits in Indian country was

challenged in Michigan v. EPA, (D.C.

Cir. No. 99–1151). On October 30, 2001,

the court issued its decision in the case,

vacating a provision that would have

allowed EPA to treat areas over which

EPA determines there is a question

regarding the area’s status as if it is

Indian country, and remanding to EPA

for further proceedings. EPA will

respond to the court’s remand and

explain EPA’s approach for further

implementation of part 71 in Indian

country in a future action.

D. Citizen Comment Letters

On May 22, 2000, EPA promulgated a

rulemaking that extended the interim

approval period of 86 operating permits

programs until December 1, 2001. (65

FR 32035) The action was subsequently

challenged by the Sierra Club and the

New York Public Interest Research

Group (NYPIRG). In settling the

litigation, EPA agreed to publish a

notice in the Federal Register that

would alert the public that they may

identify and bring to EPA’s attention

alleged programmatic and/or

implementation deficiencies in title V

programs and that EPA would respond

to their allegations within specified time

periods if the comments were made

within 90 days of publication of the

Federal Register notice.

Two individuals commented on what

they believe to be deficiencies with

respect to the Clark County title V

program. As stated in the Federal

Register notice published on October

10, 2001 (66 FR 51620) proposing to

fully approve Clark County’s operating

permits program, EPA takes no action

on those comments in today’s action.

Rather, EPA expects to respond by

December 14, 2001 to timely public

comments on programs that have

obtained interim approval, and by April

1, 2002 to timely comments on fully

approved programs. We will publish a

notice of deficiency (NOD) when we

determine that a deficiency exists, or we

will notify the commenter in writing to

explain our reasons for not making a

finding of deficiency. In addition, we

will publish a notice of availability in

the Federal Register notifying the

public that we have responded in

writing to these comments and how the

public may obtain a copy of our

response. An NOD will not necessarily

be limited to deficiencies identified by

citizens and may include any

deficiencies that we have identified

through our program oversight.

Furthermore, in the future, EPA may

issue an additional NOD if EPA or a

citizen identifies other deficiencies.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’ (58

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final

approval is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. Under the Regulatory Flexibility

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) the

Administrator certifies that this final

approval will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities because it

merely approves state law as meeting

federal requirements and imposes no

additional requirements beyond those

imposed by state law. This rule does not

contain any unfunded mandates and

does not significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4) because it approves

pre-existing requirements under state

law and does not impose any additional

enforceable duties beyond that required

by state law. 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,

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000). This rule

also does not have Federalism

implications because it will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

63192 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 234 / Wednesday, December 5, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism’’

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This

rule merely approves existing

requirements under state law, and does

not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities between the State and

the Federal government established in

the Clean Air Act. This final approval

also is not subject to Executive Order

13045, ‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) or

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions

Concerning Regulations That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355 (May

22, 2001), because it is not a significant

regulatory action under Executive Order

12866. This action will not impose any

collection of information subject to the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., other than

those previously approved and assigned

OMB control number 2060–0243. For

additional information concerning these

requirements, see 40 CFR part 70. An

agency may not conduct or sponsor, and

a person is not required to respond to,

a collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number.

In reviewing State operating permit

programs submitted pursuant to title V

of the Clean Air Act, EPA will approve

State programs provided that they meet

the requirements of the Clean Air Act

and EPA’s regulations codified at 40

CFR part 70. 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 State operating permit

program for failure to use VCS. It would

thus be inconsistent with applicable law

for EPA, when it reviews an operating

permit program , to use VCS in place of

a State program 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.

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). This rule

will be effective on November 30, 2001.

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 February 4, 2002.

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 70

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Operating permits, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 29, 2001.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

40 CFR part 70, chapter I, title 40 of

the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 70—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 70

continues to read as follows:

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

2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended

by revising paragraphs (a) (b), and (c)

under Nevada to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70—Approval

Status of State and Local Operating

Permits Programs

* * * * *

Nevada

* * * * *

(a) Nevada Division of Environmental

Protection:

(1) Submitted on February 8, 1995; interim

approval effective on January 11, 1996;

interim approval expires December 1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on May 30, 2001.

Full approval is effective on November 30,

2001.

(b) Washoe County District Health

Department:

(1) Submitted on November 18, 1993;

interim approval effective on March 6, 1995;

interim approval expires December 1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on May 8, 2001.

Full approval is effective on November 30,

2001.

(c) Clark County Department of Air Quality

Management:

(1) Submitted on January 12, 1994 and

amended on July 18 and September 21, 1994;

interim approval effective on August 14,

1995; interim approval expires on December

1, 2001.

(2) Revisions submitted on June 1, 2001.

Full approval is effective on November 30,

2001.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–30097 Filed 12–4–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–300734A; FRL–6804–4]

RIN 2070–AB78

4-Amino-6-(1,1-dimethylethyl)-3-

(methylthio)-1,2,4-triazin-5(4H)-one

[Metribuzin], Dichlobenil,

Diphenylamine, Sulprofos,

Pendimethalin, and Terbacil; Tolerance

Actions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule establishes,

modifies, and revokes specific

tolerances for residues of the herbicides

dichlobenil, metribuzin, pendimethalin,

and terbacil; the plant growth regulator

diphenylamine, and the insecticide

sulprofos. EPA is revoking certain

tolerances because EPA has canceled

the food uses associated with them. The

regulatory actions proposed in this final

rule are part of the Agency’s

reregistration program under the Federal

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide

Act (FIFRA), and the tolerance

reassessment requirements of the

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act

(FFDCA) section 408(q), as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

of 1996. By law, EPA is required by

August 2002 to reassess 66% of the

tolerances in existence on August 2,

1996, or about 6,400 tolerances. This

final rule revokes 29 tolerances, but

only one tolerance reassessment

(sulprofos) is counted here toward the

August, 2002 review deadline. The

tolerances associated with the other 28

revocations were reassessed and

counted previously through the

Reregistration Eligibility Decision (RED)

process.

DATES: This regulation is effective

March 5, 2002. Objections and requests

for hearings, identified by docket

control number OPP–300734A, must be