Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30815

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 August 7, 2001.

Interested parties should comment in

response to the proposed rule rather

than petition for judicial review, unless

the objection arises after the comment

period allowed for in the proposal.

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,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Dated: May 21, 2001.

Ira W. Leighton,

Acting Regional 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 as follows:

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

Subpart OO—Rhode Island

2. Section 52.2088 is added to subpart

OO to read as follows:

§ 52.2088 Control strategy: Ozone.

Revisions to the State Implementation

Plan submitted by the Rhode Island

Department of Environmental

Management on September 21, 1998.

These revisions are for the purpose of

satisfying the rate of progress

requirement of section 182(c)(2)(B), and

the contingency measure requirements

of section 182(c)(9) of the 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]

Revisions to the Arizona and California

State Implementation Plans, Maricopa

County Environmental Services

Department, Placer County Air

Pollution Control District and South

Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

Maricopa County Environmental

Services Department (MCESD) portion

of the Arizona State Implementation

Plan (SIP), and the Placer County Air

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD) portions of the

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 under the Clean

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August

7, 2001, without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comments by July

9, 2001. If we receive such comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s

technical support documents (TSDs) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the 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.

30816 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Placer County APCD, DeWitt Center,

11464 ‘‘B’’ Ave., Auburn, CA 95603–

2603.

South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley

Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182.

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.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rules?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action.

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. Public comment and final action.

III. Background information.

A. Why were these rules submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rules we are

approving with the dates that they were

adopted by the local air agencies and

submitted by the State agency.

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

MCESD ....................................... 349 Pharmaceutical, Cosmetic and Vitamin Manufacturing Operations 04/07/99 08/04/99

PCAPCD ..................................... 229 Fiberboard Manufacturing .............................................................. 06/28/94 07/13/94

SCAQMD .................................... 1189 Hydrogen Plant Process Vents ...................................................... 01/21/00 07/26/00

On August 25, 1999, July 22, 1994,

and October 4, 2000, these rule

submittals were found to meet the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51

Appendix V, which must be met before

formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of These

Rules?

There are no previous versions of

Rules 349, 229, and 1189 in the SIP.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rules?

MCESD Rule 349 applies to the

manufacture and blending of materials

to make pharmaceutical or cosmetic

products or vitamins, including any

process that is incidental to such

operations, such as tablet coating and

finishing.

PCAPCD Rule 229 applies to new and

existing facilities that manufacture

medium density fiberboard. Currently

there is only one facility in Placer

County, the SierraPine, Ltd. plant, in

Rocklin, CA.

SCAQMD Rule 1189 reduces

emissions of volatile organic

compounds from hydrogen plants that

produce any hydrogen for use in

petroleum refining operations. The

TSDs have more information about

these rules.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

Generally, SIP rules must be

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the

Act), must require Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) for major

sources in nonattainment areas (see

section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax

existing requirements (see sections

110(1) and 193). The MCESD, PCAPCD,

and SCAQMD regulate ozone

nonattainment areas (see 40 CFR part

81), so Rules 349, 229, and 1189 must

fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that

we used to define specific enforceability

and RACT requirements include the

following:

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November

24, 1987.

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;

Clarification to Appendix D of

November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of

availability published in the May 25,

1988 Federal Register.

3. ‘‘Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans,’’ U.S. EPA, 40

CFR part 51.

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for

National Primary and Secondary

Ambient Air Quality Standards,’’

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act, and

Plan Requirements for Nonattainment

Areas, Title I Part D of the Clean Air

Act, Sections 182(b)(2), 189(a)(1)(C) and

189(b)(1)(B).

5. ‘‘EPA–OAQPS Guideline—Control

of Volatile Organic Emissions from

Manufacture of Synthesized

Pharmaceutical Products,’’ December

1978.

6. TSD for RACT Determination as

prepared for US EPA Region IX Air and

Toxics Division by E.H. Pechan &

Associates, Inc. January 18, 1994.

7. ‘‘Determination of RACT for control

of Fugitive Emissions of VOCs from Oil

and Gas Production and Processing

Facilities, Refineries, Chemical Plants,

and Pipeline Transfer Stations,’’ CARB,

December 8, 1993.

B. Do The Rules Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

We believe these rules are consistent

with the relevant policy and guidance

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP

relaxations. The TSDs have more

information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of

the Act, EPA is fully approving the

submitted rules because we believe they

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do

not think anyone will object to this

approval, so we are finalizing it without

proposing it in advance. However, in

the Proposed Rules section of this

Federal Register, we are simultaneously

proposing approval of the same

submitted rules. If we receive adverse

comments by July 9, 2001, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the pubic that

the direct final approval will not take

effect and will address the comments in

a subsequent final action based on the

proposal. If we do not receive timely

adverse comments, the direct final

approval will be effective without

further notice on August 7, 2001. This

will incorporate these rules into the

federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

VOCs help produce ground-level

ozone and smog, which harm human

health and the environment. Section

110(a) of the CAA requires states to

submit regulations that control VOC

emissions. Table 2 lists some of the

national milestones leading to the

submittal of these local agency VOC

rules.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 111 / Friday, June 8, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 30817

TABLE 2.—OZONE NONATTAINMENT MILESTONES

Date Event

March 3, 1978 ...................... EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonatttainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964;

40 CFR 81.305.

May 26, 1988 ....................... EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and

requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA’s SIP–Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended

Act.

November 15, 1990 ............. Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–

7671q.

May 15, 1991 ....................... Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that ozone nonattainment areas correct deficient RACT rules by this date.

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 to approve

pre-existing 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 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 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.).

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

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 D—Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(94)(i)(F) to read as

follows:

§ 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(94) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) Rule 349, adopted on April 7,

1999.

* * * * *

Subpart F—California

3. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(198)(i)(B)(2) and

(c)(280) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(198) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Rule 229, adopted on June 28,

1994.

* * * * *

(280) New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on July 26, 2000, by the Governor’s

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 1189, adopted on January 21,

2000.

[FR Doc. 01–14247 Filed 6–7–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M