28054 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Washington, DC 20231; or by facsimile

to (703) 308–6459, marked to the

attention of Charles Pearson.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Office

published a final rule in the Federal

Register of March 22, 2001 (66 FR

16004), entitled ‘‘Revision of Patent

Cooperation Treaty Application

Procedure.’’ This document corrects

errors in §§ 1.494(c)(2), 1.495(c)(2), and

1.497(a)(1).

Specifically, §§ 1.494(c)(2) and

1.495(c)(2) as revised in the above final

rule inadvertently omitted the

provisions that:

The payment of the processing fee set forth

in § 1.492(f) is required for acceptance of an

English translation later than the expiration

of 20 [or 30] months after the priority date.

The payment of the surcharge set forth in

§ 1.492(e) is required for acceptance of the

oath or declaration of the inventor later than

the expiration of 20 [or 30] months after the

priority date. A ‘‘Sequence Listing’’ need not

be translated if the ‘‘Sequence Listing’’

complies with PCT Rule 12.1(d) and the

description complies with PCT Rule 5.2(b).

Section 1.497(a)(1) as revised in the

above final rule inadvertently omitted

the section symbols before the reference

to §§ 1.66 or 1.68.

In rule FR Doc. 01–7132, published

on March 22, 2001 (66 FR 16004), make

the following corrections:

1. On page 16006, in the second

column, in § 1.494, in paragraph (c)(2),

add the following sentences to the end

thereof:

§ 1.494 Entering the national stage in the

United States of America as a designated

office.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * * The payment of the

processing fee set forth in § 1.492(f) is

required for acceptance of an English

translation later than the expiration of

20 months after the priority date. The

payment of the surcharge set forth in

§ 1.492(e) is required for acceptance of

the oath or declaration of the inventor

later than the expiration of 20 months

after the priority date. A ‘‘Sequence

Listing’’ need not be translated if the

‘‘Sequence Listing’’ complies with PCT

Rule 12.1(d) and the description

complies with PCT Rule 5.2(b).

* * * * *

2. On page 16006, in the third

column, in § 1.495, in paragraph (c)(2),

add the following sentences to the end

thereof:

§ 1.495 Entering the national stage in the

United States of America as an elected

office.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(2) * * * The payment of the

processing fee set forth in § 1.492(f) is

required for acceptance of an English

translation later than the expiration of

30 months after the priority date. The

payment of the surcharge set forth in

§ 1.492(e) is required for acceptance of

the oath or declaration of the inventor

later than the expiration of 30 months

after the priority date. A ‘‘Sequence

Listing’’ need not be translated if the

‘‘Sequence Listing’’ complies with PCT

Rule 12.1(d) and the description

complies with PCT Rule 5.2(b).

* * * * *

1.497 [Corrected]

3. On page 16006, in the third

column, in § 1.497, in paragraph (a)(1),

line 2, correct ‘‘either 1.66 or 1.68’’ to

read ‘‘either §§ 1.66 or 1.68’’.

Dated: May 15, 2001.

Nicholas P. Godici,

Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for

Intellectual Property and Acting Director of

the United States Patent and Trademark

Office.

[FR Doc. 01–12764 Filed 5–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD116–3067a; FRL–6979–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; State of

Maryland; Repeal of Petroleum

Refinery Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on a revision to the State of

Maryland State Implementation Plan

(SIP) submitted on January 4, 2001 by

the Maryland Department of the

Environment (MDE). This revision

repeals the requirements for petroleum

refineries in the State of Maryland.

There are no petroleum refineries

located in the State of Maryland. EPA is

approving this SIP in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act.

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 & Information Services

Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. You

may inspect copies of the documents

relevant to this action during normal

business hours at the following

locations: 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 the

Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,

Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ellen Wentworth, (215) 814–2034 at the

EPA Region III address above, or by email at wentworth.ellen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Description of the SIP Revision and

EPA’s Action

The information in this section is

organized as follows:

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

B. Why is EPA Taking This Action?

C. Why Is the Request Approvable?

D. What Is the Process for EPA Approval of

This Action?

A. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is approving a revision to the

State of Maryland SIP which was

submitted on January 4, 2001 by MDE.

This revision repeals Regulation .04,

Petroleum Refineries, under Maryland’s

Code of Maryland Administrative

Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.11, Control

of Petroleum Products Installations,

including Asphalt Paving and Asphalt

Concrete Plants. At one time there was

the possibility of a petroleum refinery

being constructed in the State of

Maryland which would have required

regulation under COMAR 26.11.11.04,

and under Maryland’s SIP. However, a

facility was never constructed, and at

the present time there are no petroleum

refineries located in Maryland.

B. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

EPA is approving this SIP revision at

the request of MDE. Since there are no

petroleum refineries located in the State

of Maryland, Maryland repealed its

petroleum refinery regulation, COMAR

26.11.11.04, Petroleum Refineries,

under COMAR 26.11.11, Control of

Petroleum Products Installations,

including Asphalt Paving and Asphalt

Concrete Plants. Because there are no oil

refineries in the State of Maryland, EPA

is approving the SIP revision to amend

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 28055

COMAR 26.11.11 to repeal Regulation

26.11.11.04, Petroleum Refineries.

C. Why is the Request Approvable?

As stated previously, there are no

petroleum refineries located in

Maryland. Therefore, a regulation to

control such sources is not necessary. If

a new petroleum refinery were to move

in to Maryland, it would be subject to

New Source Performance Standards

(NSPS), New Source Review (NSR),

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

requirements (PSD), Maximum

Achievable Control Technology (MACT)

standards, as well as Maryland’s Toxic

Air Pollutants (TAPs) regulations.

Therefore, EPA finds the Maryland

request approvable.

D. What Is the Process for EPA Approval

of This Action?

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comment. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

written comments be 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. Please note that

if EPA receives adverse comment on an

amendment, paragraph, or section of

this rule and if that provision may be

severed from the remainder of the rule,

EPA may adopt as final those provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an

adverse comment.

II. Final Action

EPA is approving the revision to the

State of Maryland SIP which was

submitted on January 4, 2001 by MDE.

This revision amends COMAR 26.11.11,

Control of Petroleum Products

Installations, including Asphalt Paving

and Asphalt Concrete Plants to repeal

Regulation 26.11.11.04, Petroleum

Refineries.

III. What Are the 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

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.).

B. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

C. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

approving the repeal of Regulation

26.11.11.04, Petroleum Refineries under

COMAR 26.11.11, Control of Petroleum

Products Installations, including

Asphalt Paving and Asphalt Concrete

Plants 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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.