Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33177

PART 271—INTERPRETATIVE

RELEASES RELATING TO THE

INVESTMENT COMPANY ACT OF 1940

AND GENERAL RULES AND

REGULATIONS THEREUNDER

4. Part 271 is amended by adding

Release No. IC–25003 and the release

date of June 14, 2001, to the list of

interpretive releases.

Dated: June 14, 2001.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 01–15455 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 226–0271; FRL–6998–3]

Revision to the California State

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a full

disapproval of a revision to the

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action

was proposed in the Federal Register on

November 14, 2000 and concerns

volatile organic compound (VOC)

emissions from the transfer of gasoline

at dispensing stations. We are taking

this action under authority of the Clean

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the

Act).

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on

July 23, 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 rule revisions at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

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.

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District, 43301 Division Street, Suite 206,

(P.O. Box 4038), Lancaster, CA 93539.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al

Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX; (415) 744–1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

I. Proposed Action

On November 14, 2000 (65 FR 68111),

EPA proposed a full disapproval of the

following rule that was submitted for

incorporation into the California SIP.

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

AVAPCD ........................................................... 461 Gasoline Transfer and Dispensing ................... 09/15/98 05/13/99

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 comments from the

following party:

• Charles L. Fryxell, AVAPCD; letter

dated December 12, 2000 and received

December 14, 2000.

The comments and our responses are

summarized below.

Comment I: AVAPCD disagrees with

EPA that the reference to Rule 430 must

be removed from Rule 461 because Rule

430 is not in the SIP and is not

appropriate for the SIP. AVAPCD argues

that Rule 430 was appropriately

submitted to EPA as a SIP revision to

support the District’s title V program.

AVAPCD believes that pursuant to the

part 70 White Papers #1 and #2,

submitted Rule 430 should be

considered enforceable unless and until

EPA disapproves it.

Response: Page 19 of part 70 White

Paper #2 provides for Districts to write

Title V permits that rely on rules that

have been submitted but not approved

by EPA, where the District reasonably

believes that the submitted rule will be

approved. This does not adequately

support the comment on Rule 461

because:

(1) The White Papers do not address

the case where a SIP rule, rather than a

permit, references rules submitted but

not approved.

(2) Based on the EPA correspondence

referenced in the comment, AVACPD

cannot reasonably assume that the

submitted Rule 430 will be approved.

Because we believe Rule 430 will not

be incorporated into the SIP and

because we have identified other

deficiencies in Rule 461, we believe it

is appropriate to list the reference to

Rule 430 as a deficiency in Rule 461.

However, if AVAPCD continues to

request EPA action on Rule 430, we can

act on Rule 430 in a time frame

consistent with District activity to revise

Rule 461.

Comment II: AVAPCD comments that

they removed the ‘‘Self-Compliance

Program’’ (SCP) from Rule 461 because

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD) audits showed that

the SCP was ineffective. AVAPCD also

comments that they intend to monitor

changes that SCAQMD has made in

their SCP and will consider EPA’s

suggested replacement program.

Response: Information collected over

the last several years by CARB,

SCAQMD and others show considerable

VOC emissions caused by inadequately

maintained vapor recovery equipment.

The SCP was designed to require regular

equipment inspections and upkeep to

ensure reasonable emission control.

While this program may be flawed, we

believe it has resulted in significant

emission reductions. AVAPCD’s

removal of the SCP requirement without

equivalent replacement violates sections

110(l), 182(b)(2), and 182(b)(3) of the

CAA.

Comment III: AVAPCD comments that

the proposed disapproval should be a

limited approval/limited disapproval,

because the rule was previously

approved into the SIP and portions of

the proposed amendments, including

the deletion of the training requirement,

the conditional extension of the

exemption for mobile fuelers, and a

33178 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

wide variety of minor changes, were

acceptable to EPA.

Response: In general, we propose a

limited approval/limited disapproval to

SIP revisions that have minor

deficiencies but strengthen the SIP

overall. We believe this is not the case

for the submitted Rule 461. None of the

cited amendments and minor changes

strengthen the SIP. The deletion of the

requirement for the Self-Compliance

Program weakens the SIP overall.

Therefore, it is preferable to maintain

the existing version of the rule in the

SIP until the deficiencies are corrected.

III. EPA Action

No comments were submitted that

change our assessment of the rules as

described in our proposed action.

Therefore, as authorized in sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is

finalizing a full disapproval of the

submitted rule. This action retains the

SIP rule in the California SIP. Sanctions

will not be imposed under section 179

of the Act as described in 59 FR 39832

(August 4, 1994).

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under E.O.

12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency.

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045

because it does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. E.O. 13132 requires EPA to

develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

State and local officials in the

development of regulatory policies that

have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies

that have federalism implications’’ is

defined in the Executive Order to

include regulations that 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.’’ Under E.O.

13132, EPA may not issue a regulation

that has federalism implications, that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs, and that is not required by statute,

unless the Federal government provides

the funds necessary to pay the direct

compliance costs incurred by State and

local governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

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

E.O. 13132, because it merely acts on 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. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

Executive Order 13175, entitled

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR

67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by

tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have tribal

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal

implications’’ is defined in the

Executive Order to include regulations

that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on

one or more Indian tribes, on the

relationship between the Federal

government and the Indian tribes, or on

the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian tribes.’’

This final rule does not have tribal

implications. It will not have substantial

direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175.

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

EPA’s disapproval of the state request

under section 110 and subchapter I, part

D of the Clean Air Act does not affect

any existing requirements applicable to

small entities. Any pre-existing federal

requirements remain in place after this

disapproval. Federal disapproval of the

state submittal does not affect state

enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s

disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new Federal requirements.

Therefore, I certify that this action will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 120 / Thursday, June 21, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33179

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more

to either State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action acts

on pre-existing requirements under

State or local law, and imposes no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to today’s action because it

does not require the public to perform

activities conducive to the use of VCS.

H. 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. A major rule

cannot take effect until 60 days after it

is published in the Federal Register.

This rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

I. 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 August 20, 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,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: May 24, 2001.

Jane Diamond,

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 52.269 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(3)(iii) to read as

follows:

§ 52.269 Control strategy and regulations:

Photochemical oxidants (hydrocarbons)

and carbon monoxide.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(iii) Antelope Valley APCD.

(A) Rule 461, Gasoline Transfer and

Dispensing, submitted on May 13, 1999,

is disapproved. The version of this rule

submitted on January 31, 1996 (same

title and number), which was previously

approved in 40 CFR 52.220, is retained.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–15617 Filed 6–20–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301135; FRL–6786–1]

RIN 2070–AB78

Isoxadifen-ethyl; Time-Limited

Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

time-limited tolerances for combined

residues of the safener isoxadifen-ethyl

in or on rice, grain; rice, straw; rice,

hulls; and rice, bran. Aventis

CropScience requested this tolerance

under the Federal Food, Drug, and

Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA)

of 1996. The tolerance will expire on

June 21, 2004.

DATES: This regulation is effective June

21, 2001. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number OPP–301135, must be received

by EPA on or before August 20, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301135 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Vera Soltero, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington,

DC 20460; telephone number: (703)

308–9359; and e-mail address:

soltero.vera@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS

Codes

Examples of Potentially Affected

Entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.