# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 66 Fed. Reg. 30811 2001

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed Jun 16 16:49:00 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 111/Friday, June 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

control equipment is recycled into the active mud system (e.g., mud pits, mud pumps) and back downhole. Drill cuttings discarded from the solids control equipment are a waste product. Drill cuttings are also cleaned out ofthe mud pits and from the solid separation equipment during displacement ofthe drilling fluid system (i.e., accumulated solids).

Most drilling operators use, at a minimum, a solids control system typically consisting ofprimary and secondary shale shakers in series with a "fines removal unit" (e.g., mud cleaner, decanting centrifuge). The primary and secondary shale shakers remove the larger and smaller cuttings respectively. The fines removal unit removes the "fines" (i.e., low gravity solids) down to about 5microns (10 6 meters). Solids less than 5microns are labeled as "entrained" and are unable to be removed by solids control equipment. Because oftheir small size and large surface area per unitvolume, the fines retain more drilling fluidthan an equal amount oflarger cuttings coming offthe shale shakers. This solid control equipment configuration was labeled as "baseline" (i.e., representative of current industry practice) in the April 2000 NODA (65 FR 21559). EPA continues to use this solid control equipment configuration as baseline in the analyses supporting today's final rule.

EPA assessed the baseline performance using industry submitted ROC data received before and in response to the April 2000 NODA. EPA received sufficient additional cuttings retention datafrom GOM sources to reevaluate the discharges ofthe baseline solids control equipment (e.g., primary shale shaker, secondary shale shaker, fines removal unit)to calculate arevised baseline long-term average retention value of10.2% byweight of SBF on cuttings. Despite therevision ofthe retention data, the revised long-term average retention value is only slightly different than the 110%originally calculated for the February 1999 proposal and the 11.4% calculated for the April 2000 NODA. This relative convergence ofthe various calculated baseline performance averages provides further confidence in the accuracy ofthe baseline model and associated data. Operators alsorecover additional drilling fluid from drill cuttings discarded from the shale shakers through the use ofcuttings dryers (e.g., vertical or horizontal centrifuges, squeeze press mud recovery units, HighG linear shakers). Since the February 1999 proposal andApril 2000 NODA, the GOM offshore drilling industry has increased its use of"add-on" cuttings drying equipment (i.e., "cuttings dryers") to reduce the amount of SBF adhering to the SBF-cuttings prior to discharge. Specifically, in response to the April 2000 NODA, EPA received ROC data from approximately 45 GOM SBF well projects that used cuttings dryers (e.g., vertical or horizontal centrifuges, squeeze press mud recovery units, High-G linear shakers) to reduce the amount ofSBF discharged (see SBF Statistical Support Document). These 45 GOM SBF well projects represent a broad representation oftypical factors affecting solids control equipment performance which include: (1)GOM formation types (e.g., shale, sand, salt); (2)rigtypes (e.g., drill tension leg platform, semi-submersible); (3)drilling operation types (i.e., exploratory or development); (4) water depth (i.e., shallow or deep); and (5)rates of penetration (ROP). Current data available to EPAindicates thatthese cuttings dryers can operate consistently and efficiently.

2. Onpage 6874, in column 3, line 14, correct the sentence to read "c. Sediment Toxicity ofSBF Discharged with Cuttings."

PART 435-[CORRECTED] Appendix 5 to SubpartA-[Corrected]

3. Onpage 6908, in column 2, in appendix 5to subpart A ofpart 435 in 9.2. in line 15, correct the line to read "2% oil-Detected in >90% of samples". Appendix 7 to SubpartA-[Corrected]

4. Onpage 6912, in appendix 7to subpart A ofpart 435, in 4. calculations, in the last paragraph of7., correct equations 11 and 13 to read as follows: Appendix 7 to SubpartA ofPart435- APIRecommended Practice 13B-2

4. Calculations

* * * *

7. * * *

GWELL = (1+ ([i 

### =I to

### j= 

### nX (%BFTj)]

### /n)) 

### x VWEL (bbl) X 396.9(kg/bbl)

%BFwELL : ((1 -XSVD) X[i 

## =I to

### j = nX(%BFTj)]/n 

# ] )+ XSVDX%BFSVD

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-13413 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52
[RI-022b; A-1-FRL-6990-6]
Approval and Promulgation ofAir Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Post-1996 Rate of Progress Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP)revision submitted by the State ofRhode Island. This revision establishes a post-1996
rate ofprogress (ROP) emission reduction plan for the Providence serious ozone nonattainment area in Rhode Island. The intended effect of this action is to approve this SIP revision as meeting the requirements of the Clean Air Act. DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on August 7, 2001 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse
comment by July 9, 2001. Ifadverse 

### 30811

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 30811 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 111/Friday, June 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

comment is received, EPAwill publish

atimely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule in the FederalRegister and inform the public thatthe rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to David Conroy, Unit Manager, Air Quality Planning, Office ofEcosystem Protection (mailcode CAQ), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023. Copies ofthe documents relevant to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPANew England, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA, and at the Office of Air Resources, Department of Environmental Management, 235 Promenade Street,Providence, RI 02908-5767. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert McConnell, (617) 918-1046. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 21, 1998, the State ofRhode Island submitted a formal revision toits SIP. The SIP revision consisted ofa post-1996 rate-of-progress (ROP) plan for the Providence serious ozone nonattainment area, which encompasses the entire geographic area ofthe State.

This Supplementary Information sectionis organized as follows: A. What actionis EPAtaking today? B.Whywas Rhode Islandrequired toreduce

emissions ofozone forming pollutants? C.Which specific airpollutants aretargeted

bythis emissionreduction plan? D.What arethe sources of these pollutants? E.What harmful effects can these pollutants

produce? F. Should Ibe concerned ifIlive nearan

industry thatemits a significant amount of these pollutants? G.To what degree does Rhode Island's plan

reduce emissions? H. Howwill Rhode Island achieve these

emissionreductions? I.Have these emissionreductions improved

airquality in Rhode Island? J.Has Rhode Island met its contingency

measure obligation? K.Are conformity budgets contained in the

plan?
A. What action isEPAtaking today?

EPA is approving a post-1996 rate-ofprogress (ROP) emission reduction plan submittedby the State ofRhode Island for the Providence serious ozone nonattainment area as a revision to the State's SIP.

The post-1996 ROP plan documents how Rhode Island complied with the provisions of section 182 (c)(2)(B) ofthe Federal Clean Air Act (theAct). This section ofthe Act requires states containing certain ozone nonattainment

areas develop strategies to reduce emissions ofthe pollutants that react to form ground level ozone. B. Why was Rhode Island Required to Reduce Emissions ofOzone Forming Pollutants?

Rhode Island was required to develop

aplan to reduce ozone precursor emissions because it contains an ozone nonattainment area. A final rule published by EPA onNovember 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694) designated the entire State asnonattainment for ozone, and classified the area as serious. The area
was named the Providence area. Section 182 (c)(2)(B) ofthe Act requires that serious, severe, and extreme ozone nonattainment areas develop ROP plans toreduce ozone forming pollutant emissions by 3 percent a year, averaged over each consecutive 3year period beginning in 1996, until the area reaches its attainment date. The first setof emission reductions are required to

occur between November 1996 and November 1999, and arereferred to as post-1996 ROP plan reductions, which will yield an overall reduction ofnine percent ofthe combined 1990 VOC and NOx emission levels.
C. Which Specific Air Pollutants Are Targeted byThis Emission Reduction Plan?

The State's post-1996 plan is geared towards reducing emissions ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). These compounds react in the presence ofheat and sunlight to form ozone, which is a primary ingredient of smog. D. WhatArethe Sources ofThese Pollutants?

VOCs are emitted from avariety of
sources, including motor vehicles, a variety ofconsumer and commercial products such aspaints and solvents, chemical plants, gasoline stations, and otherindustrial sources. NOx is emitted from motor vehicles, power plants, and other sources thatburn fossil fuels.
E. What Harmful Effects Can These Pollutants Produce?

VOCs andNOx react in the atmosphere to form ozone, theprime ingredient ofsmog in our cities and many rural areas ofthe country. Though

ozone occurs naturally high in our atmosphere, atground level itis the prime ingredient ofsmog. When inhaled, even at verylow levels, ozone
can: Cause acute respiratory problems; Aggravate asthma; Cause significant temporary decreases

in lung capacity in somehealthy adults; Cause inflammation oflungtissue; Lead tohospital admissions and

emergency roomvisits; and Impair the body's immune system

defenses.
F. Should I Be Concerned IfI Live Near

an Industry That Emits a Significant Amount ofThese Pollutants?

Industrial facilities that emit large amounts ofthese pollutants are monitored bythe State's environmental agency, the Department of Environmental Management (RI-DEM). Many facilities are required to emit air pollutants through stacks to ensure that high concentrations ofpollutants do not exist at groundlevel. Permits issued to these facilities include information on which pollutants are being released, howmuch may be released, and what steps the source's owner or operator is takingto reduce pollution. The RI-DEM makes permit applications andpermits readily available to the public for review.You can contact the RI-DEM for

more information about air pollution emitted by industrial facilities in your neighborhood.
G. To WhatDegree Does Rhode Island's Plan Reduce Emissions?

By 1999, Rhode Island's plan will reduce VOC emissions by 29 percent and NOx emissions by 17 percent compared to 1990 emission levels. This reduction is attributable to the control strategy outlined inthe State's post1996 plan, andin Rhode Island's ROP planfor the years 1990 to 1996 that achieved a 15 percent reduction in VOC emissions. The reduction is also partly attributable tothe Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP). Not all emission reductions from the FMVCP program are creditable towards ROP emission reductions, and RI-DEM's ROPplan accurately accounts for this. EPA approved the Rhode Island 15 percent ROP plan on December 8, 1998 (63 FR 67594).

Rhode Island usedthe appropriate EPA guidance to calculate the 1999 VOC and NOx emission target levels, and the amount ofreductions needed to achieve its emission target levels.

Table 1illustrates the steps used by Rhode Islandto derive its 1999 emission target levels for VOC andNOx. The ROP planindicates that 1999projected, controlled emissions are belowthe target levels for the Providence serious nonattainment area. 

### 30812

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 30812 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 111/Friday, June 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1 [units =tons per summer day (tpsd)]

Description Pollutant-VOC Pollutant-NOx
Step 1:1990 Inventory

..................................................... 258

................................ 101.0 Step 2: ROP Inventory (biogenics subtracted)

................. 185.1

......................................................... 101.0 Step 3: Adjusted inventory: removal of non-creditable re- -16.0 (FMVCP)

....................................... -9.6 (FMVCP)

ductions1and non-reactive VOCs.

- 2.6 (non-reactives)

................................ N

et: 166.5

................................................. N et: 91.4 Step 4: Calculate required reduction (State will use both 2.5%

.......................................................... 6.5%

VOC and NOx rdxns. to meet post-1996 ROP, as shown) 2 4.2

............................................................. 5.9 Step 5: Calculate Total Expected Reductions 3

...... .. ..... ... 4.2

............................................................. 9.6 + 5.9 = 15.5 Step 6:Set Target Level for 1999 4

.................................. 137.3

......................................................... 85.5 Step 7: Project Emissions to 1999

.................................. 173.3

......................................................... 98.8 Step 8: Projected, Controlled Emissions for 1999

........... 130.1

......................................................... 83.7

1 States cannot take credit for reductions achieved by Federal Motor Vehicle Control Program (FMVCP) measures (new car emission standards) promulgated prior to 1990 or for reductions resulting from requirements to lower the Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) of gasoline promulgated prior to 1990.

2These reduction percentages were revised pursuant to a letter sent to EPA from the RI-DEM dated 4/02/01. This revision subsequently changes the emission targets shown in step 6.

3 Rhode Island accounted for the full 9 years of FMVCP reductions in deriving its 1996 VOC target, so no additional FMVCP reductions need to be subtracted in development of the post-1999 ROP target.

4 For NOx, target level = Step 2

- Step 5. For VOC, target level = 1996 target of 141.5

- Step 5.

Rhode Island projected itsbase year emissions to 1999 using growth factors from a variety of sources, including the U.S. Department ofCommerce's Bureau ofEconomic Analysis, and Bureau of Census datato derive population based growth factors.
H. How Will Rhode Island Achieve These Emission Reductions?

Rhode Island's post-1996 control strategy matches the control strategy described in the EPA's December 8, 1998 approval ofthe State's 15 percent plan, and also includes additional emission reductions from regulations limiting NOxemissions from stationary point sources, VOC and NOx emission reductions from federal measures limiting emissions from non-road engines promulgated between 1996 and 1999, andVOC and NOx reductions from the on-road mobile sector attributable to the State's LowEmission Vehicle program. These additional control programs are further described below.

Rhode Island's post-1996 plan also reflects credit from the State's enhanced automobile inspection and maintenance (I&M)program, which was supposed to start bymid-1999. The post-1996 plan estimated that 2.2 tpsd in VOC emission reduction credit and 1.8 tpsd in NOx emission reduction credit were expected to accrue by the end of 1999 from this program. However, Rhode Island did not actually begin itsprogram until January of2000, so emission reductions from this program did not occur in the 1996 to 1999 time-frame. This does not create a shortfall in the State's post-1996 ROP plan because Rhode Island's plan contained enough surplus emission reductions to coverits emission reduction obligation after subtraction of the I/Mreductions.
NOx RACT

Rhode Island has adopted a NOx RACT regulation, the citation for which is Air Pollution Control regulation No. 27, "Control ofNitrogen Oxide Emissions." Facilities covered bythe rule needed to comply byMay 31, 1995. Rhode Island submitted the rule to EPA

as arevision to the State's SIP, and EPA approved itvia adirect final rulemaking published on September 2, 1997 (62 FR 46202). Rhode Island determined, and EPA agrees, that this program will reduce NOx emissions in the State by 6.55 tons per summer day (tpsd)by 1999.
Federal Non-RoadStandards
In the June 17, 1994 Federal Register (59 FR 31306), EPA established a regulation setting final emission standards for new heavy duty compression ignition (diesel) engines. These rules adopt NOx and smoke standards for large (>50HP) non-road diesel engines. Additionally, in the July 3, 1995 FederalRegister (60 FR 34581), EPA promulgated the first phase ofthe regulations to control emissions from

new non-road spark-ignition engines. The regulation is found at 40 CFR part 90, andis titled, "Control ofEmissions From Non-road Spark-Ignition Engines." Rhode Island correctly applied guidance contained in a November 28, 1994 EPA memorandum pertaining tothe federal non-road engine control program to determine the VOC andNOx emission reductions that will occur in the State.

The sale ofreformulated gasoline in Rhode Island alsoreduces VOC nonroad emissions in the State. The combined effect ofreformulated gasoline and the new non-road standards will lower VOC emissions by 4.0tpsd in the State, and lower NOx emissions by 1.3 tpsd.
RhodeIslandNational Low Emission VehicleProgram

Rhode Island submitted aNational LowEmission Vehicle (NLEV) program to EPA as arevision to the State's SIP, and EPA approved the program via a direct final rule publishedin the Federal Register on March 9, 2000 (65 FR 12476). The NLEV program allows auto manufacturers to commit to meet tailpipe standards for cars and lightduty trucks that are more stringent than EPAcan mandate. The program will reduce VOC emissions by 0.08 tpsd, and NOx emissions by 0.12 tpsd.

The Rhode Island post-1996 ROP plan demonstrates thatthe VOC and NOx emission reductions from the control strategy will achieve sufficient emission reductions to lower 1999 emission levels below the target levels calculated for each pollutant.

I. Have These Emission Reductions Improved Air Qualityin Rhode Island?

Ozone levels have decreased in Rhode Island duringthe 1990's, duein partto emission reductions achieved by the State's plans. Pollution control

measures implemented by States 30813

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 30813 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 111/Friday, June 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

upwind ofRhode Island have also helped ozone levels decline in the State. J. Has Rhode Island Metits Contingency Measure Obligation?

Ozone nonattainment areas classified

as serious orabove must submit tothe EPA, pursuant to sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) ofthe Act, contingency

measures tobe implemented ifan area misses an ozone SIP milestone or does not attain the national ambient air quality standard by the applicable date. Table 1indicates that Rhode Island's post-1996 ROP plan achieves surplus emission reductions. The State's post1996 ROP plan does not address contingency measures. However, on April 2, 2001, the Rhode Island DEM submitted aletter to EPA indicating the State's intention that surplus emission reductions achieved by the measures in the ROP plan be used to cover the State's contingency measure obligation. This request resulted in a change to the VOC andNOx emission reduction percentages; the revised percentages are shown inTable 1.

Table 1indicates aVOC surplus of7.2 tpsd and a NOx surplus of 1.8 tpsd. However, as noted inthe I&M program discussion in this document, Rhode Island did not begin its I&Mprogram until January 1, 2000. Table 2illustrates howthe surplus emission reductions, adjusted to subtract reductions from the I/Mprogram, can coverthe 3% contingency obligation.

TABLE 

### 2 [units =tpsd]

Providence Area Calculation Step VOC NO×
Step 1: Adjusted 1990 Emissions (from Table 1)

........................................................................................................... 166.5 91.4 Step 2: 1999 Target Levels (from Table 1)

..................................................................................................................... 137.3 85.5 Step 3: Controlled 1999 Emissions (from Table 1)

......................................................................................................... 130.1 83.7 Step 4: Contingency Obligation (3% of Adjusted inventory)

........................................................................................... 5.0 0 Step 5: Revised Controlled 1999 Emissions (add 2.2 tpsd VOC and 1.8 tpsd NOxto the controlled 1999 emissions

shown in Table 1 to account for delayed implementation of I&M)

.............................................................................. 132.3 85.5 Step 6: Final Surplus after Contingency (Step 5-Step 4)

............................................................................................... 0 0

As canbe seen from the above table, the surplus VOC emission reduction would cover the area's 3% contingency obligation, leaving no additional reductions to spare. Therefore, EPA concludes thatthe Rhode Island post1996 ROP plan adequately demonstrates that the required 9% post-1996 ROP and 3%contingency reductions have been achieved.

K. Are Conformity Budgets Contained in the Plan?

Section 176(c) ofthe Act, and40 CFR 51.452(b) ofthe Federal transportation conformity rule require states to establish motor vehicle emissions budgets in any control strategy SIP that is submitted for attainment and maintenance ofthe NAAQS. Rhode Island will use suchbudgets to determine whether proposed projects that attract traffic will "conform" to the emissions assumptions in the SIP.

The Rhode Island post-1996 rate of progress plan contained 1999 on-road motor vehicle emission budgets for VOCs andfor NOx for the Providence serious nonattainment area. The 1999 VOC budget stated in theplan is 41.57 tpsd, and the NOxbudget is46.40 tpsd. Rhode Island used the EPA's MOBILE 5b emission factor model to determine these budgets. These budgets shouldbe used for making transportation conformity determinations in the State.
II. Final Action

EPA is approving the Rhode Island post-1996 rate-of-progress emission reduction plan as a revision to the State's SIP.

The EPAis publishing this action without prior proposal because the Agency viewsthis as anoncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in theproposed rules section ofthis Federal Register publication, EPAis publishing a separate document that will serve asthe proposal to approve the SIP revision shouldrelevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 7,2001 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by July 9, 2001.

Ifthe EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on the proposed rule. Only parties interested in commenting on the proposed rule should do so at this time. Ifno such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule willbe effective on August 7,2001 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

Please note that ifEPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section ofthis rule andif that provision may be severed from the remainder ofthe rule, EPAmay adopt

asfinal those provisions oftherule that are not the subject ofan adverse comment.
III.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 toreview bythe Office ofManagement 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 thatthis rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities underthe Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601
etseq.).Because this rule approves preexisting requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond thatrequired 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). Thisrule 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 andIndian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will ithave substantial direct effects on the States, onthe relationship between the national government and the States, 30814

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 30814 2001

### Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 111/Friday, June 8, 2001/Rules and Regulations

oron the distribution ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, 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 ofpower andresponsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also isnot subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis 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 ofa prior existing requirement for the State touse voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPAhas no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure touse VCS. Itwould thusbe inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3ofExecutive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPAhas taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, andprovide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPAhas complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988)by examining the takings implications ofthe rule in accordance with the "Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation ofRisk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings" issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (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 agencypromulgating the rule must submit arule report, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and tothe Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This actionis not a "major rule" as defined by 5U.S.C. 804(2).

Under section 307(b)(1) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by August 7,2001. Interested parties should comment in response to the proposed rule rather than petition forjudicial review, unless the objection arises afterthe comment period allowed for in the proposal. Filing apetition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affectthe finality ofthis rule for the purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: May 21, 2001. IraW. Leighton, ActingRegional Administrator, EPA-New England.

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues to read asfollows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart OO-Rhode Island

2. Section 52.2088 is added to subpart 00 toread as follows:
§52.2088 Control strategy: Ozone.

Revisions tothe State Implementation Plan submittedby the Rhode Island Department ofEnvironmental Management on September 21, 1998. These revisions are for the purpose of satisfying the rate ofprogress requirement ofsection 182(c)(2)(B), and the contingency measure requirements ofsection 182(c)(9) ofthe Clean Air Act, for the Providence serious ozone nonattainment area. [FR Doc. 01-13941 Filed 6-7-01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 095-0237a; FRL-6987-3]

Revisionsto the Arizona and California State Implementation Plans, Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Placer County Air Pollution Control District and South Coast AirQuality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA istaking direct final action to approve revisions to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion ofthe Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP), andthe Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portions ofthe California SIP. These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic and Vitamin Manufacturing Operations, Fiberboard Manufacturing, and Hydrogen Plant Process Vents. We

are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources underthe Clean AirAct as amended in 1990 (CAAor the Act). DATES: This rule is effective on August 7, 2001, withoutfurther notice, unless EPAreceives adverse comments byJuly 9, 2001. Ifwe receive such comment, we will publish atimely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public thatthis rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR4), U.S.Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, CA94105-3901.

You can inspect copies ofthe submitted SIP revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies ofthe submitted SIP revisions at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 "I" Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department, 1001 N. Central Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix,Arizona, 85004-1942. 30815

HeinOnline -- 66 Fed. Reg. 30815 2001