Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61561 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21261 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R09–OAR–2005–CA–0005; FRL–7986–8] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Ventura County 

Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District (VCAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from surface cleaning operations. 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 

December 27, 2005 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comments by November 25, 2005. If we 

receive such comments, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register to notify the public that this 

direct final rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number R09–OAR–

2005–CA–0005, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

3. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

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

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at http://docket.epa.gov/ 

rmepub/, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

If EPA cannot read your comment due 

to technical difficulties and cannot 

contact you for clarification, EPA may 

not be able to consider your comment. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, allen.cynthia@epa.gov. 

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 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the rules. 

D. Public comment and final action. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

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 California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .6 Surface Cleaning and Degreasing ................................................ 11/11/03 04/26/05 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .6.1 Batch Loaded Vapor Degreasers .................................................. 11/11/03 04/26/05 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .12 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products .............................. 11/11/03 04/26/05 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .13 Aerospace Assembly and Component Manufacturing Operations 11/11/03 04/26/05 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .19 Graphic Arts ................................................................................... 11/11/03 04/26/05 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .19.1 Screen Printing Operations ........................................................... 11/11/03 04/26/05 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .24 Marine Coating Operations ........................................................... 11/11/03 04/26/05 

VCAPCD .................................... 74 .30 Wood Products Coatings ............................................................... 11/11/03 04/26/05 

On June 3, 2005, 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? 

We approved versions of these rules 

into the SIP on the dates listed: Rule 

74.6 on December 11, 2000 (adopted on 

November 10, 1998 and submitted on 

February 16, 1999), Rules 74.6.1, 74.6.2, 

and 74.6.3 on July 21, 2000 (adopted on 

July 9, 1996 and submitted on October 

18, 1996), Rules 74.12, 74.13, 74.24, and 

74.30 on April 19, 2001 (adopted on 

September 10, 1996 and submitted on 

March 3, 1997), 74.19 on May 23, 2002 

(adopted on April 10, 2001 and 

submitted on October 30, 2001), and 

74.19.1 on August 21, 1998 (adopted on 

June 11, 1996 and submitted on October 

18, 1996. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

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. 

61562 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Rule 74.6 limits most cleaning 

activities to using solvents containing 

no more than 25 grams per liter. The 

rule will still allow hydrocarbon 

solvents to be used for cleaning 

operations where water-based cleaners 

would cause problems. The rule applies 

to any non-boiling surface cleaning 

operation, including handwipe 

cleaning, flushing, and cleaning 

conducted in degreasing tanks and other 

non-boiling surface cleaning apparatus. 

Most of the requirements in revised 

Rule 74.6 are carried over from existing 

Rules 74.6 and 74.6.1. 

Rule 74.6.1 adds requirements to 

retrofit existing units with an automated 

parts handling system and to retrofit 

existing units with either a superheated 

vapor zone or a refrigerated freeboard 

chiller. The revised rule was rewritten 

and rearranged from existing Rule 74.6.2 

for clarity and to delete obsolete 

language. Rule 74.6.1 replaces existing 

Rule 74.6.2. 

Rule 74.6.3 is being repealed because 

there are currently no conveyorized 

degreasers operating in the District. 

Rules 74.12, 74.13, 74.19, 74.19.1, 

74.24, and 74.30 are being revised to 

prohibit the use of cleaning solvents 

containing more than 25 grams of 

reactive organic compounds (ROC) per 

liter (25 g/l) in degreasing tanks and 

handwipe operations. This restriction 

applies to cold surface cleaning 

operations conducted in degreasing 

equipment as well as cleaning outside of 

degreasing equipment. 

The TSD has 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(l) and 193). The VCAPCD regulates 

a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (see 

40 CFR part 81), so these rules must 

fulfill RACT. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to help evaluate specific 

enforceability and RACT requirements 

consistently 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,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

4. Control Technique Guideline (CTG) 

titled, ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic 

Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning’’

(EPA–450/2–77–022, November 1977), 

CARB’s RACT/BARCT guidance titled, 

‘‘Organic Solvent Cleaning and 

Degreasing Operations’’ (July 18, 1991). 

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 TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rules 

We have no recommendations. 

D. 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 November 25, 2005, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we 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 December 27, 

2005. This will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

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. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

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. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). 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 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 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will 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). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does 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). This action merely 

approves several district rules 

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 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks’’ (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. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 205 / Tuesday, October 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 61563 

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 December 27, 

2005. 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: August 31, 2005. 

Laura Yoshii, 

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 paragraph (c)(336)(i)(B) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(336) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rules 74.6, 74.6.1, 74.12, 74.13, 

74.19, 74.19.1, 74.24, and 74.30, 

adopted on November 11, 2003. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–21264 Filed 10–24–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[CO–001–0076a; FRL–7983–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; CO; 

PM10 Designation of Areas for Air 

Quality Planning Purposes, Lamar 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

approve a State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the State of 

Colorado on July 31, 2002, for the 

purpose of redesignating the Lamar, 

Colorado area from nonattainment to 

attainment for particulate matter with 

an aerodynamic diameter less than or 

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers 

(PM10) under the 1987 standards. The 

Governor’s submittal, among other 

things, documents that the Lamar area 

has attained the PM10 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), 

requests redesignation to attainment and 

includes a maintenance plan for the area 

demonstrating maintenance of the PM10

NAAQS for ten years. EPA is approving 

this redesignation request and 

maintenance plan because Colorado has 

met the applicable requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), as amended. Upon 

the effective date of this approval, the 

Lamar area will be designated 

attainment for the PM10 NAAQS. This 

action is being taken under sections 107, 

110, and 175A of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

November 25, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this under Docket ID No. CO–

001–0076a. Some information in the 

docket is not publicly available, i.e., 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Publicly available 

docket materials are available in hard 

copy at the Air and Radiation Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, 999 18th Street, Suite 

200, Denver, Colorado 80202–2466. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the docket. You may view the 

docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. 

to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

Copies of the Incorporation by 

Reference material are also available at 

the Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Room B–108 (Mail 

Code 6102T), 1301 Constitution Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Libby Faulk, Air and Radiation Program, 

U.S. EPA, Region VIII, 999 18th Street, 

Ste. 200 (8P–AR), Denver, Colorado, 

80202–2466. Telephone: (303) 312–

6083. E-mail Address: 

faulk.libby@epa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

5, 2004, EPA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) (69 FR 

47339) and a direct final rule (DFR) (69 

FR 47366) approving the redesignation 

of the Lamar PM10 nonattainment area 

to attainment. During the public 

comment period, EPA received adverse 

comments and therefore withdrew the 

DFR on September 20, 2004 (69 FR 

56163). EPA is addressing the comments 

received during the comment period in 

this final rule action. For the purpose of 

this document, we are giving meaning to 

certain words or initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State mean the State 

of Colorado, unless the context indicates 

otherwise. 

Table of Contents 

I. EPA’s Final Action 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing in this 

Rule? 

II. Summary of Public Comments and EPA’s 

Response 

III. Consideration of CAA section 110(l) 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. EPA’s Final Action 

A. What Action Is EPA Finalizing in 

This Rule? 

We are approving the Governor’s 

submittal of July 31, 2002, that requests 

redesignation for the Lamar 

nonattainment area to attainment for the 

1987 PM10 standards. Included in 

Colorado’s submittal are changes to the 

‘‘State Implementation Plan—Specific 

Regulations for Nonattainment—

Attainment/Maintenance Areas (Local 

Areas)’’ which we are approving, under