Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21045

is prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) or

(e) and which substantially shows or

describes but does not claim the same

patentable invention, as defined in 37

CFR 1.601(n), or on reference to a

foreign patent or to a printed

publication, the inventor of the subject

matter of the rejected claim, the owner

of the patent under reexamination, or

the party qualified under 37 CFR 1.42,

1.43 or 1.47, may submit an appropriate

oath or declaration to overcome the

patent or publication. The oath or

declaration must include facts showing

a completion of the invention in this

country or in a NAFTA or WTO member

country before the filing date of the

application on which the U.S. patent

issued, or before the date of the foreign

patent, or before the date of the printed

publication. When an appropriate oath

or declaration is made, the patent or

publication cited shall not bar the grant

of a patent to the inventor or the

confirmation of the patentability of the

claims of the patent, unless the date of

such patent or printed publication is

more than one year prior to the date on

which the inventor’s or patent owner’s

application was filed in this country.

(2) A date of completion of the

invention may not be established under

this section before December 8, 1993, in

a NAFTA country, or before January 1,

1996, in a WTO Member country other

than a NAFTA country.

* * * * *

Dated: March 21, 1995.

Bruce A. Lehman,

Assistant Secretary of Commerce and

Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks.

[FR Doc. 95–10501 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 122–1–6982a; FRL–5198–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Santa

Barbara County Nonattainment Area,

Transportation Control Measure

Replacement

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final

action to approve a revision to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for ozone for Santa Barbara

County, which was submitted to EPA on

November 14, 1994. This direct final

approval action deletes a transportation

control measure (TCM) from the

federally-approved 1982 California

ozone SIP and replaces it with a TCM

from the state-adopted 1994 California

ozone SIP. The intended effect of direct

final approval of this SIP revision is to

control emissions of ozone precursors in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or 1990 Act).

DATES: This direct final action is

effective on June 30, 1995 unless

adverse or critical comments are

received by May 31, 1995. If the

effective date is delayed, a timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State

submittal and EPA’s technical support

document are available for public

inspection at EPA’s Region IX office

during normal business hours. Copies of

the submitted SIP revision are available

for inspection at the following locations:

Mobile Sources Section (A–2–1), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), ANR 443, 401 ‘‘M’’

Street SW., Washington, DC 20460

California Air Resources Board, 2020

‘‘L’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 92123

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, 26 Castillian Drive

B–23, Goleta, CA 93117

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Deborah Schechter, Mobile Sources

Section, Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1227.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On March 3, 1978, Santa Barbara

County was designated an ozone

nonattainment area by EPA under the

provisions of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR

81.305. On December 31, 1982 the State

of California submitted the 1982 ozone

SIP for Santa Barbara County.

EPA approved California’s 1982 ozone

SIP for Santa Barbara County and

published the Federal Register

document on December 20, 1983 (48 FR

56215). The 1982 Santa Barbara County

SIP, or Air Quality Attainment Plan

(AQAP), submitted in 1982 included

nine TCMs. One of these was the Goleta

Transit Center, a transit center with

limited park-and-ride capability in

downtown Goleta. No emission

reduction credit was claimed for this

TCM in the 1982 AQAP. According to

the Santa Barbara County Association of

Governments (SBCAG), the Goleta

Transit Center and its ancillary parkand-ride lot were constructed in 1980

and operated until 1985. The facilities

were closed and sold by the Santa

Barbara Metropolitan Transit District

(SBMTD) in October 1985 due to

insufficient usage.

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 (1990 Act)

were enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

On November 14, 1994, the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted

the 1994 ozone SIP to EPA. The portion

of this SIP for the Santa Barbara County

nonattainment area, the 1994 Clean Air

Plan (CAP), stated that the TCMs in the

1994 CAP superseded those in the 1982

AQAP. The 1994 CAP was adopted by

the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District (SBAPCD) on November

2, 1994 and later by CARB on November

14, 1994.

On January 18, 1995, the SBAPCD

provided a letter to EPA requesting

expedited rulemaking action to replace

the Goleta Transit Center TCM in the

1982 AQAP with TCM–5, Improve

Commuter Public Transit Service, in the

1994 CAP.

In a letter to the State dated March 24,

1995, EPA found the submittal of TCM–

5 complete.

II. Summary and Evaluation of SIP

Revision

Section 176(c) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) prohibits any metropolitan

planning organization (MPO) designated

under section 134 of title 23 of the

United States Code, from approving any

transportation project, program, or plan

which does not conform to a SIP

approved under section 110 of the CAA.

The federal transportation conformity

regulation (40 CFR part 51, subpart T)

implements the transportation-related

requirements of section 176(c). Section

51.418 of the regulation requires the

transportation plan and program to

provide for the timely implementation

of transportation control measures

(TCMs) from the applicable federallyapproved implementation plan. A TCM

is defined in section 51.392 as any

measure that is specifically identified

and committed to in the applicable

implementation plan that is either one

of the types listed in section 108 of the

CAA, or any other measure for the

purpose of reducing emissions or

concentration of air pollutants from

transportation sources by reducing

vehicle use or changing traffic flow or

congestion conditions.
21046 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Under the federal transportation

conformity rule, before an MPO or the

Department of Transportation (DOT) can

approve a transportation plan or

program, a conformity determination

must be made which shows timely

implementation of all of the TCMs in

the approved SIP and demonstrates that

all obstacles to TCM implementation

have been removed. In the case of Santa

Barbara County, the nine TCMs

identified in the 1982 SIP must meet the

timely implementation criterion in

order for the transportation plan and

program to be approved and projects to

be funded. Because the Goleta Transit

Center was implemented but was later

discontinued, this TCM cannot be found

to meet the criterion of timely

implementation.

The preamble to the conformity

regulation at 58 FR 62198 states that if

the original project sponsor or the

cooperative planning process decides

not to implement the TCM or decides to

replace it with another TCM, a SIP

revision which removes the TCM will

be necessary before plans and programs

may be found in conformity. (In order

to be approved by EPA, such a SIP

revision must include substitute

measures that achieve emissions

reductions sufficient to meet all

applicable requirements of the CAA,

including section 110(l).)

In order to meet the requirement of

the conformity regulation for timely

implementation of TCMs and to enable

FHWA to approve SBCAG’s

transportation plan and program, Santa

Barbara County and the State of

California have opted to revise the SIP

to delete the Goleta Transit Center TCM

from the SIP and replace the measure

with an alternative TCM for which

timely implementation can be

demonstrated. On November 14, 1994,

California submitted a SIP revision for

Santa Barbara County which replaces

the Goleta Transit Center TCM with

TCM–5, Improve Commuter Public

Transit Service.

The state-adopted 1994 SIP commits

to implement the following levels of

transit service associated with TCM–5:

1. SBMTD Isla Vista/Santa Barbara

City College (SBCC) Express Service:

SBMTD will continue to operate an

express bus line between Isla Vista and

SBCC (about 25 miles). The service was

initiated in September 1993.

2. SBMTD Downtown Waterfront

Shuttle Service and Expansion: SBMTD

will continue to provide electric shuttle

service along State Street and on the

Waterfront in the City of Santa Barbara.

In addition, SBMTD will purchase two

additional electric-powered buses to

expand this service.

3. APCD Clean Air Express and

Expansion: The SBAPCD will continue

to operate compressed natural gas (CNG)

commuter bus service from the northern

county and Ventura County into Santa

Barbara. Four new buses, for a total of

nine, will be added to this service.

4. Santa Maria Area Transit (SMAT)

New Service Lines and Expansion:

SMAT will maintain new Route 6 which

was added in 1993. Another route,

Route 7, will be added to this service.

In addition, SMAT will purchase one

new CNG bus to serve Route 7.

5. Santa Ynez Transit Expansion: A

new electric bus will be purchased for

expansion of fixed route service in the

Santa Ynez Valley.

6. Santa Barbara Rail Service

Expansion (AMTRAK): Two additional

trains per day are planned between

Santa Barbara and San Diego.

Improvements to the existing Santa

Barbara rail station have also been

programmed to support the service

expansion.

The SIP anticipates a reduction of

3,301 daily vehicle trips, or a total of

45,410 daily VMT in 1996 from the

implementation of TCM–5. The

reduction in vehicle trips and VMT is

estimated to lead to emission reductions

of 36.2 kg ROG/day and 73.1 kg NOX/

day in 1996. The 1982 ozone SIP took

no emission reduction credit for the

Goleta Transit Center. SBMTD survey

data indicated that an average of seven

persons per day were using the transit

center and the park-and-ride lot was

providing free parking for patrons of

nearby businesses. Because TCM–5 is

expected to result in significantly

greater reductions in vehicle trips, VMT,

and emissions than the Goleta Transit

Center, the SIP revision does not

weaken the federally-approved 1982

SIP.

III. EPA’s Action

This action approves TCM–5,

contained in the California ozone SIP

for Santa Barbara County submitted to

EPA by the State of California on

November 14, 1994. The action also

deletes the Goleta Transit Center from

the 1982 ozone SIP. This latter TCM is

no longer subject to the timely

implementation criterion of the

conformity regulation. EPA has

evaluated the submitted TCM and has

determined that it is consistent with the

CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

Therefore, TCM–5 in Santa Barbara’s

SIP revision is being approved under

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting

the requirements of sections 110(a) and

(l) and part D. Today’s action does not

affect the remainder of the submitted

1994 ozone SIP revision for Santa

Barbara County. EPA will take separate

action on the bulk of Santa Barbara’s

1994 ozone SIP revision in future

rulemaking.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. 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.

EPA is publishing this notice without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective June 30, 1995,

unless, by May 31, 1995, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based a separate proposed rule. The

EPA will not institute a second

comment period on this action. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective June 30, 1995.

IV. Regulatory Process

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 Action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as

revised by an October memorandum

from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over population of less

than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 21047

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose

any new requirements, I certify that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2). The OMB has exempted this

action from review under Executive

Order 12866.

V. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203 and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan revision, the State

and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under sections

110 and 182(b) of the Clean Air Act.

These rules may bind State, local, and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules being approved by

this action will impose any mandate

upon the State, local, or tribal

governments either as the owner or

operator of a source or as a regulator, or

would impose any mandate upon the

private sector, EPA’s action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are

already subject to these requirements

under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this direct final action

does not include a mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Jeff Zelikson,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(211) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(211) Revised Clean Air Plans for

ozone for the following APCDs

submitted on November 14, 1994, by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Santa Barbara Air Pollution

Control District

(1) TCM–5, Improve Commuter Public

Transit Service, adopted on November

2, 1994

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–10613 Filed 4–28–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 300

[FRL–5200–1]

National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency

Plan National Priorities List Update

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Deletion of the

Kenmark Textile Corporation site from

the National Priorities List.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) Region II announces the

deletion of the Kenmark Textile

Corporation site from the National

Priorities List (NPL). The NPL is

appendix B of 40 CFR part 300 which

is the National Oil and Hazardous

Substances Pollution Contingency Plan

(NCP), which EPA promulgated

pursuant to Section 105 of the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act (CERCLA), as amended. EPA and

the State of New York have determined

that all appropriate Hazardous

Substance Response Trust Fund

(Fund)—financed responses under

CERCLA have been implemented and

that no further cleanup is appropriate.

Moreover, EPA and the State of New

York have determined that remedial

actions conducted at the site to date

have been protective of public health,

welfare, and the environment.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Doug Garbarini, Section Chief, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region II, 290 Broadway, 20th Floor,

New York, NY 10007–1866, (212) 637–

4263.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The site to

be deleted from the NPL is the Kenmark

Textile Corporation site, Farmingdale,

Suffolk County, New York. A notice of

intent to delete for this site was

published in the Federal Register (59

FR 64644) on December 15, 1994. The

closing date for comments on the Notice

of Intent to Delete was January 17, 1995.

EPA received no verbal or written

comments of the proposed deletion.

EPA identifies sites which appear to

present a significant risk to public

health, welfare, or the environment and

it maintains the NPL as the list of those

sites. Sites on the NPL may be the

subject of Fund-financed remedial

actions. Any site deleted from the NPL

remains eligible for Fund-financed

remedial actions in the unlikely event

that conditions at the site warrant such

action. Section 300.66(c)(8) of the NCP

states that Fund-financed actions may

be taken at sites deleted from the NPL.

Deletion of a site from the NPL does not

affect responsible party liability or

impede EPA efforts to recover costs

associated with response efforts.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 300

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Chemicals, Hazardous

substances, Hazardous waste,

Intergovernmental relations, Penalties,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Superfund, Water

pollution control, Water supply.

Dated: April 10, 1995.

William J. Muszynski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

40 CFR part 300 is amended as

follows:

PART 300—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 300

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1321(c)(2); 42 U.S.C.

9601–9657; E.O. 12777, 56 FR 54757, 3 CFR,

1991 Comp. p. 351; E.O. 12580, 52 FR 2923,

3 CFR, 1987 Comp. p. 193.