20912 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 214–0232; FRL–6578–6]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air

Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

(SJVUAPCD) and Sacramento

Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District (SMAQMD) portions of the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP). These revisions were proposed in

the Federal Register on January 26,

2000 and concern volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

gasoline transfer into stationary storage

container, delivery vessels and bulk

plants, and from organic chemical

manufacturing operations. We are

approving local rules that regulate these

emission sources under the Clean Air

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: These rules are effective

on May 19, 2000.

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 rules 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, NW.,

Washington DC. 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1999

Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno,

CA 93721

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management District, 8411 Jackson

Road, Sacramento, CA 95826

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max

Fantillo, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, (415) 744–1183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

On January 26, 2000 (65 FR 4208),

EPA proposed to approve the following

rules into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule

No. # Rule title Adopted Submitted

SJVUAPCD 4621 Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Containers, Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants ............ 06/18/98 08/21/98

SMAQMD 464 Organic Chemical Manufacturing Operations ..................................................................... 07/23/98 05/13/99

We proposed to approve these rules

because we determined that they

complied with the relevant CAA

requirements. Our proposed action

contains more information on the rules

and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this

period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted that

change our assessment that the

submitted rules comply with the

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the

Act, EPA is fully approving these rules

into the California SIP.

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.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 76 / Wednesday, April 19, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 20913

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 June 19, 2000.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: March 30, 2000.

Nora McGee,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(263)(i)(C)(2) and

(c)(273) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(263) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) Rule 464, adopted on July 23,

1998.

* * * * *

(273) New and amended regulations

for the following APCD’s were

submitted on August 21, 1998, by the

Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 4621, amended on June 18,

1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–9542 Filed 4–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA095–0234; FRL–6579–3]

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 of revisions to the Ventura

County Air Pollution Control District

(VCAPCD) portion of the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

action was proposed in the Federal

Register on February 22, 2000 and

concerns emissions of sulfur dioxide

(SO2). Under authority of the Clean Air

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act), this action approves a local rule

that regulates emissions of sulfur

compounds and directs California to

correct a rule deficiency. There will be

no sanctions clock as Ventura County

Air Pollution Control District is in

attainment for SO2.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

May 19, 2000.

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 rule 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, NW,

Washington DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Ventura County APCD, 669 County

Square Dr., 2nd Fl., Ventura, CA

93003–5417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stanley Tong, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

On February 22, 2000 (65 FR 8676),

EPA proposed a limited approval of the

following rule that was submitted for

incorporation into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

VCAPCD ......................................................... 54 Sulfur Compounds ......................................... 6/14/94 7/13/94

We proposed a limited approval

because we determined that this rule

improves the SIP and is largely

consistent with the relevant CAA

requirements. However, we cannot grant

a full approval because the rule contains

a deficiency which was discussed in our

proposed action. Our proposed action

contains more information on the rule

and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this

period, we received no comments.

III. EPA Action

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

the provision that was identified as

deficient. As stated in the proposed

rule, EPA is finalizing this action in