Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 77307

* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–31358 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 224–0268; FRL–6908–1]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Ventura County

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited

approval and limited disapproval of a

revision to the Ventura County Air

Pollution Control District’s (VCAPCD)

portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action

was proposed in the Federal Register on

August 9, 2000 and concerns volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions

from surface cleaning and degreasing.

Under authority of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this

action simultaneously approves a local

rule that regulates this emission source

and directs California to correct rule

deficiencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

January 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of

the administrative record for this action

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal

business hours. You can inspect copies

of the submitted SIP revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,

Washington D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 669 County Square Dr., 2nd Fl.,

Ventura, CA 93003–5417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

On August 9, 2000 (65 FR 48652),

EPA proposed a limited approval and

limited disapproval of the following

rule that was submitted for

incorporation into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

VCAPCD ................ 74.6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing ...................................................................... 11/10/98 02/16/99

We proposed a limited approval

because we determined that this rule

improves the SIP and is largely

consistent with the relevant CAA

requirements. We simultaneously

proposed a limited disapproval because

some rule provisions conflict with

section 110 and part D of the Act. These

provisions are described below.

• Rule 74.6 contains two director’s

discretion clauses in Sections C and C2a

which are unapprovable because they

allow the APCO to change SIP

requirements without going through the

rulemaking process.

• Section C1f contains a reference to

Rule 74.32, Electronic Manufacturing

Operations, which has never been

submitted for approval into the SIP. The

reference creates confusion over the

rule’s applicability.

• Section D requires that records of a

solvent’s intended uses, content, mix

ratio be recorded. Although the types of

records that must be maintained are

specified, the frequency with which

records should be kept is not specified.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this

period, we did not receive any

comments.

III. EPA Action

Because no comments were

submitted, our assessment of the rule as

described in our proposed action is not

changed. Therefore, as authorized in

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

EPA is finalizing a limited approval of

the submitted rule. This action

incorporates the submitted rule into the

California SIP, including those

provisions identified as deficient. As

authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA

is simultaneously finalizing a limited

disapproval of the rule. As a result,

sanctions will be imposed unless EPA

approves subsequent SIP revisions that

correct the rule deficiencies within 18

months of the effective date of this

action. These sanctions will be imposed

under section 179 of the Act according

to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must

promulgate a federal implementation

plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless

we approve subsequent SIP revisions

that correct the rule deficiencies within

24 months. Note that the submitted

rules have been adopted by the

VCAPCD, and EPA’s final limited

disapproval does not prevent the local

agency from enforcing them.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and

therefore is not subject to review by the

Office of Management and Budget. This

action merely approves state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law

and does not impose any additional

enforceable duty beyond that required

by state law, it does not contain any

unfunded mandate or significantly or

uniquely affect small governments, as

described in the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104–4).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

77308 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 238 / Monday, December 11, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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 February 9, 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: November 1, 2000

Felicia Marcus,

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)(262)(i)(B)(3) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(262) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) Rule 74.6, revised on November

10, 1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–31330 Filed 12–8–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH–138–2; FRL–6914–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is redesignating

Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties, Ohio,

to attainment for particulate matter

nominally 10 microns in aerodynamic

diameter and smaller (PM10). EPA is

also approving Ohio’s plan for

maintaining air quality at levels below

the applicable air quality standards.

EPA proposed these actions on July

10, 2000. One commenter submitted

numerous comments, generally taking

the position that the criteria for

redesignation to attainment given in

Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(E) are

not met. EPA has reviewed these

comments and, for the reasons set forth

below, continues to believe that the

redesignation criteria have been met and

that these areas may be redesignated

and their maintenance plans approved.

The Steubenville area includes

portions of Brooke County, West

Virginia, as well as Jefferson County,

Ohio. For administrative convenience

EPA is taking action only on the Ohio

portion of this area. Nevertheless, the

action reflects review of air quality for

the entire area and Ohio’s fulfillment of

its portion of an area-wide attainment

plan that it developed jointly with West

Virginia. In the future, if the standard is

violated in either portion of the area,

such that redesignation back to

nonattainment is warranted, EPA will

propose to reinstate nonattainment

status for the entire area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action will be

effective on January 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the Ohio’s

submittals and other information are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following address:

(We recommend that you telephone

John Summerhays at (312) 886–6067,

before visiting the Region 5 Office)

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air Programs Branch

(AR–18J), Regulation Development

Section, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Summerhays, Environmental Scientist,

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air Programs Branch

(AR–18J), Regulation Development

Section, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067,

(summerhays.john@epa.gov).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The terms

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ in this notice

signify EPA. This notice is organized as

follows:

Table of Contents

I. What actions did EPA propose, and why?

II. What comments did EPA receive and what

are our responses?

III. What actions is EPA taking, and why?

IV. Administrative requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Executive Order 12898

F. Regulatory Flexibility

G. Unfunded Mandates

H. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

I. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act