31552 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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. section 804(2). This

rule will be effective August 13, 2001

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by July 12, 2001.

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 13, 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter.

Dated: May 9, 2001.

Norman Neidergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 P—Indiana

2. Section 52.770 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(140) to read as

follows:

§ 52.770 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(140) On August 31, 2000, Indiana

submitted revised particulate matter

emissions regulations for Rolls-Royce

Allison in Marion County, Indiana. The

submittal amends 326 IAC 6–1–12(a). It

includes a name change for the

company from the Allison Engine

Company to Rolls-Royce Allison and the

addition of an alternate fuel, landfill

gas. Landfill gas can be used in boilers

1 through 4 of plant 5 and boilers 3, 4,

and 7 through 10 of plant 8. These state

implementation plan revisions do not

change the particulate matter emissions

limits.

(i) Incorporated by reference.

Amendments to Indiana Administrative

Code Title 326: Air Pollution Control

Board, Article 6: Particulate Rules, Rule

1: Non-attainment Area Limitations,

Section 12: Marion County, subsection

(a). Filed with the Secretary of State on

May 26, 2000 and effective on June 25,

2000. Published in 23 Indiana Register

2419 on July 1, 2000.

[FR Doc. 01–14610 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH140–1a; FRL–6991–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; OH

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving

revisions to sulfur dioxide (SO2)

emissions regulations for the Lubrizol

Corporation (Lubrizol). This facility is

located in Lake County, Ohio. The Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio

EPA) submitted Director’s Final

Findings and Orders (Orders) for the

Lubrizol facility on November 9, 2000.

These Orders are revisions to the Ohio

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The

revisions are the adjustment of six shortterm emissions limits, the addition of an

annual emissions limit, and the addition

of a continuous emission rate

monitoring system (CERMS)

requirement for the Lubrizol facility.

Three short-term emissions limits are

relaxed and three short-term are

tightened. There is no increase in the

total potential short-term SO2 emissions.

DATES: This rule is effective on August

13, 2001, unless the EPA receives

relevant adverse written comments by

July 12, 2001. If adverse comment is

received, the EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the rule in the Federal

Register and inform the public that the

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

You may inspect copies of Ohio’s

submittal at: Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt

Rau, Environmental Engineer,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone

Number: (312) 886–6524, E-Mail

Address: rau.matthew@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the EPA approving?

II. Limit changes from the current rules.

III. Analysis of supporting materials

provided by Ohio.

IV. What are the environmental effects

of these actions?

V. EPA rulemaking actions.

VI. Administrative requirements.

I. What Is the EPA Approving?

The EPA is approving revisions to the

sulfur dioxide emissions regulations for

the Lubrizol facility in Lake County,

Ohio. Ohio EPA submitted the revised

regulation on November 9, 2000, as an

amendment to its SIP.

The revisions include the relaxation

of three short-term SO2 emissions limits

and the tightening of three short-term

limits. There is no increase in the total

potential short-term SO2 emissions. An

annual SO2 emissions limit is

established. Also, a continuous

emission rate monitoring system is

required.

II. Limit Changes From the Current

Rules

Ohio has revised six short-term

emissions limits at Lubrizol’s

Painesville facility. The limit change for

source L (Source ID P011) is from 12.6

to 2.4 pounds of sulfur dioxide per hour

(lb/hr). Source M (P012) changes from

15.0 to 160.0 lb/hr, source N (P013)

changes from 23.5 to 25.0 lb/hr, source

O changes from 14.5 to 10.0 lb/hr,

source W (P022) changes from 163.5 to

20.0 lb/hr, and the limit for source AC

(P030) changes from 18.4 to 30.0 lb/hr.

The total emissions limit of the six

sources remains at approximately 247.4

lb/hr. All six sources vent through

incinerators to a common stack.

An annual sulfur dioxide emissions

limit of 100 tons per year (TPY) is

established. Previously, the facility’s

potential to emit sulfur dioxide was

1084 TPY. A continuous emission rate

monitoring system (CERMS) is required

at the facility. The CERMS measures

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 31553

SO2 in the common stack. Lubrizol will

keep records of the CERMS data

including the instantaneous (oneminute), hourly, and rolling three-hour

average SO2 concentration.

III. Analysis of Supporting Materials

Provided by Ohio

The general criteria used by the EPA

to evaluate such intra-facility emissions

trades, or ‘‘bubbles,’’ under the Clean

Air Act and applicable regulations are

set out in the EPA’s, December 4, 1986

Emissions Trading Policy Statement

(ETPS) (see 51 FR 43814). The shortterm emissions trade at Lubrizol’s

Painesville facility qualifies as a Level I

trade. This trade meets the six criteria

in the ETPS. All six processes involved

in this trade of short-term limits vent

through a common stack. The maximum

SO2 emissions limit from the common

stack remains at approximately 247.4 lb/

hr. Following the Level I trade guidance,

it is assumed that this emissions trade

will produce ‘‘ambient equivalence’’,

which is an equal effect on area air

quality.

The Ohio EPA Orders also add an

annual SO2 limit of 100 TPY for the

facility and require a continuous

emission rate monitoring system.

Without an annual limit, Lubrizol has

the potential to emit 1084 TPY of sulfur

dioxide. These requirements provide

additional protection of human health

and the environment.

IV. What Are the Environmental Effects

of These Actions?

Sulfur dioxide causes breathing

difficulties and aggravation of existing

cardiovascular disease. It is also a

precursor of acid rain and fine

particulate matter formation. Sulfur

dioxide causes the loss of chloroform

leading to vegetation damage. These SIP

revisions should not result in an

increase in short-term SO2 emissions

from the Lubrizol facility. The addition

of an annual limit enhances air quality

protection.

V. EPA Rulemaking Actions

The EPA is approving, though direct

final rulemaking, revisions to the SO2

emissions regulations for the Lubrizol

Corporation facility in Lake County,

Ohio.

The SIP revisions include the

relaxation of three short-term SO2

emissions limits and the tightening of

three short-term limits. There is no

increase in the total potential short-term

SO2 emissions. It remains at

approximately 247.4 lb/hr. An annual

SO2 emissions limit of 100 TPY is

established. Also, a continuous

emission rate monitoring system is

required. The CERMS records the

instantaneous (one-minute), hourly, and

rolling three-hour average SO2

concentration. Lubrizol will keep its

records for five years.

We are publishing this action without

a prior proposal because we view these

as noncontroversial revisions and

anticipate no adverse comments.

However, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’

section of today’s Federal Register, we

are 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

August 13, 2001, without further notice

unless we receive relevant adverse

written comment by July 12, 2001. If the

EPA receives adverse comment, we will

publish a final rule informing the public

that this rule will not take effect. We

will address all public comments in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA does not intend

to institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on these actions must do so

at this time.

VI. 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).

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.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. section 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. section 804(2). This

rule will be effective August 13, 2001

31554 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 12, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by July 12, 2001.

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 13, 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, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Sulfur oxides.

Dated: May 18, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, 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 KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(124) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(124) On November 9, 2000, Ohio

submitted Director’s Final Findings and

Orders revising sulfur dioxide emissions

regulations for the Lubrizol Corporation

facility in Lake County, Ohio. The

revisions include the adjustment of six

short-term emissions limits, the

addition of an annual emissions limit,

and the addition of a continuous

emissions monitoring system (CEMS).

These state implementation plan

revisions do not increase allowable

sulfur dioxide emissions.

(i) Incorporated by reference.

Emissions limits for the Lubrizol

Corporation facility in Lake County

contained in Director’s Final Findings

and Orders. The orders were effective

on November 2, 2000 and entered in the

Director’s Journal on November 9, 2000.

[FR Doc. 01–14608 Filed 6–11–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 242–0280a; FRL–6990–9]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay

Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve a revision to the

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the

control of emissions from Oxides of

Nitrogen ( NOX) and sulfur compounds.

We are approving a local rule that

regulates these emissions under the

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA

or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on August

13, 2001 without further notice, unless

EPA receives adverse comments by July

12, 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 revision and EPA’s

technical support document (TSD) at

our Region IX office during normal

business hours. You may also see copies

of the submitted SIP revision 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.

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District, Rule Development,

24580 Silver Cloud Ct., Monterey, CA

93940–6536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule revision?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action.

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. Public comment and final action.

III. Background information.

A. Why was this rule submitted?

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule we are approving

with the date that it was adopted by the

local air agency and submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB).

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted

MBUAPCD .................................. 404 Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen Oxides ....................................... 03/22/00 05/26/00

On October 6, 2000, this rule

submittal was 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 this

Rule?

We approved a version of Rule 404

into the SIP on August 11, 1998.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rule Revision?

MBUAPCD submitted Rule 404,

Sulfur Compounds and Nitrogen

Oxides, includes the following

administrative changes from the current

SIP-approved rule: