28056 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: May 1, 2000

William C. Early,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

40 CFR part 52 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 V—Maryland

2. Section 52.1070 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(161) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(161) Revisions to the State of

Maryland Regulations pertaining to the

repeal of COMAR 26.11.11.04,

Petroleum Refineries, submitted on

January 4, 2001, by the Maryland

Department of the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of January 4, 2001, from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting amendments

to COMAR 26.11.11 to repeal Regulation

26.11.11.04, Petroleum Refineries.

(B) Amendments to COMAR 26.11.11,

Control of Petroleum Products

Installations, including Asphalt Paving

and Asphalt Concrete Plants, repealing

Regulation 26.11.11.04, Petroleum

Refineries, effective October 5, 1998.

(ii) Additional Material. Remainder of

the January 4, 2001 submittal pertaining

to the repeal of COMAR 26.11.11.04,

Petroleum Refineries.

[FR Doc. 01–12712 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 169–0238; FRL–6980–4]

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

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

January 10, 2001 and concerns volatile

organic compound (VOC) emissions

from soil decontamination operations.

Under authority of the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this

action simultaneously approve a local

rule that regulates these emission

sources and directs California to correct

rule deficiencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

June 21, 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, NW.,

Washington DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Ventura County APCD, 669 County

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

93003–5417

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Addison, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, (415) 744–1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

On January 10, 2001, 66 FR 1927, 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 ................................. 74.29 Soil Decontamination Operations ........................................... 10/10/95 03/26/96

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 include the following:

(Section C.4) This section provides for caseby-case exemptions by the Director from the

0.08 lb/hr allowable emission rate for vapor

extraction or bioremediation, if the operator

can demonstrate compliance with VCAPCD

Rule 51, Nuisance. This exemption is

deficient because it does not specify

replicable criteria for an exemption nor

require equivalent emissions reduction for an

exempted source.

Our proposed action contains more

information on the basis for this

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the

submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA

Responses

EPA provided for a 30-day public

comment period on January 10, 2001 in

66 FR 1927. EPA received the following

verbal comments on the proposed

rulemaking during the comment period

from Bernard Bigham of the Chesapeake

Environmental Group.

Comment 1: VCAPCD 74.29 does little

to reduce VOC emissions. Under the

exemption in paragraph (C)(3)(f), it is

estimated that 200,000 tons/year of

contaminated soil is excavated and

trucked to landfills, and VOCs volatilize

during transport and when soil is used

as landfill daily cover. There is

currently no rule other than VCAPCD

74.17 that controls VOC loss in

contaminated soil transport to landfills.

VCAPCD should remove paragraph

(C)(3)(f), or Rule 74.17 should be revised

to establish soil handling procedures

and specify test methods that

adequately evaluate and control VOC

loading of landfills. The commenter

points, for example, to Bay Area Air

Quality Management District Rule 8–40.

Response: We discussed this

comment with VCAPCD staff, who

explained that Alternate Daily Cover

(ADC) soil is only exempt under (C)(3)(f)

if it meets the test in Definition (G)(2),

which states limits by weight ppm VOC

as referenced in (F)(2) test methods. We

agree that this does establish some

control on emissions from ADC, but

recommend that the rule be clarified by

stating these requirements in paragraph

(B) or (C)(3)(f), and by clearly

referencing the appropriate test methods

in this requirement.

We also recommend that the rule be

revised to reference the other District

protocols for safe handling and

transport of contaminated soil to safe

disposal.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28057

Comment 2: Paragraph (F)(2)

appropriately references Methods 8015B

and 5035, but 74.29(F)(5) undermines

(F)(2) by referencing (B)(1)(a), which

specifies Method 21. Method 25D

should be referenced in (B)(1)(a) instead

in light of crust formation on piled soil.

Response: The District believes

Definition (G)(2), Alternate Daily Cover,

calls for the measurement of weight

ppm VOC content of crusted soils,

which requires the use of Method 25D

for determining VOCs beneath the

surface of excavated soil.

EPA concurs that an appropriate

method is being required, but

recommends for clarity that testing for

weight ppm VOC, by methods in

paragraph (F)(2), be a requirement for

the ‘‘Alternate Daily Cover’’ exemption

allowed in paragraph (C)(3)(f).

III. EPA Action

EPA has made several additional rule

recommendations based on the

submitted comments. No comments

were submitted, however, that change

our overall assessment of the rule or

modify our action on the rule as

described in our proposed action.

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 rule

has 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.

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 July 23, 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compound.

Dated: April 27, 2001.

Mike Schulz,

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)(230)(i)(A)(3) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(230) * * *

28058 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(3) Rule 74.29, adopted on October 10,

1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–12716 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD112–3066a; FRL–6979–3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Control of VOC Emissions

from Distilled Spirits Facilities

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the Maryland

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These

revisions establish reasonable available

control technology (RACT) to limit

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from distilled spirits facilties.

EPA is fully approving these revisions

in accordance with the requirements of

the Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 23,

2001 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse written comment by

June 21, 2001. If EPA receives such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Air

Quality Planning and Information

Services Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; and Maryland

Department of the Environment, 2500

Broening Highway, Baltimore,

Maryland, 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at

quinto.rose@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On November 13, 2000, the State of

Maryland submitted formal revisions to

its State Implementation Plan (SIP).

These SIP revisions, submitted by the

Maryland Department of the

Environment (MDE), consist of the

control of volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions from distilled spirits

facilties.

II. Summary of SIP Revision

COMAR 26.11.19.29 applies to a

person who owns or operates a distilled

spirits facility that has a total potential

to emit VOCs of 25 tons or more per

year.

General Provisions

This section establishes definitions

for the terms ‘‘aging warehouse,’’

‘‘bottling operation,’’ ‘‘distilled spirits,’’

‘‘distilled spirits facility,’’ and ‘‘vacuum

filling system.’’

General Requirements

This section requires the use of one of

the following control methods at

distilled spirits facilities subject to this

regulation:

• Empty and fill barrels using a

pump-operated, bayonet-type suction

and filling device, or comparably

effective device that minimizes VOC

evaporative losses when emptying or

filling barrels,

• Drain distilled spirits from filter

plates that are located between the

barrel unloading and storage tanks to

either a recycling tank or to an enclosed

collection system, and

• Use a gravity and vacuum or

pressure filling system or comparably

effective system to minimize fugitive

emissions from the bottling operations.

This section also requires during the

warmer weather, used barrels that are

stored in the outdoors awaiting disposal

shall be periodically (at least weekly)

wetted down to reduce potential leakage

and fugitive emissions.

Control of Other Fugitive Emission

Sources

This section requires a submittal to

MDE for approval, a good operating

practices manual to minimize fugitive

VOC emissions from the aging

warehouse, and shall be implemented

not later than 60 days after approval by

MDE. This section also requires a report

to be submitted to MDE following

implementation of the approved good

operating practices.

Evaluation: This SIP revision,

controlling VOC emissions from

distilled spirits facilities, will result in

significant enforceable VOC emission

reductions. EPA has determined that

COMAR 26.11.19.29 is approvable as a

SIP revision.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipate no adverse

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal

Register, EPA is publishing a separate

document that will serve as the proposal

to approve the SIP revision if adverse

comments are filed. This rule will be

effective on July 23, 2001 without

further notice unless EPA receives

adverse comment by June 21, 2001. If

EPA receives adverse comment, EPA

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect. EPA

will address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

must do so at this time.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving the SIP revisions

submitted by MDE on November 13,

2000 to control VOC emissions from

distilled spirits facilities.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. General 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).

This rule 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 and Indian tribes,

as specified by Executive Order 13175

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor

will it have substantial direct effects on

the States, on the relationship between