Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12121

recommended decision as promptly as

is consistent with its statutory

responsibilities.

(4) In order to assist in the rapid

development of an adequate evidentiary

record, all participants may file

appropriate discovery requests on other

participants as soon as an Express Mail

Market Response Rate Request is filed.

Answers to such discovery requests will

be due within 10 days. Objections to

such discovery requests must be made

within 10 days in the form of a Motion

to Excuse from Answering, with service

on the questioning participant made by

hand, facsimile, or expedited delivery.

Responses to Motions to Excuse from

Answering must be submitted within

seven days, and should such a motion

be denied, the answers to the discovery

in question are due within seven days

of the denial thereof. It is the

Commission’s intention that parties

resolve discovery disputes informally

between themselves whenever possible.

The Commission, therefore, encourages

the party receiving discovery requests

considered to be unclear or

objectionable to contact counsel for the

party filing the discovery requests

whenever further explanation is needed,

or a potential discovery dispute might

be resolved by means of such

communication.

(5) If, either on its own motion, or

after having received a request for a

hearing, the Commission concludes that

there exist one or more genuine issues

of material fact and that a hearing is

needed, the Commission shall expedite

the conduct of such record evidentiary

hearings to meet both the need to

respond promptly to changed

circumstances in the market and the

standards of 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. The

procedural schedule, subject to change

as described in paragraph (e)(6) of this

section, is as follows: Hearings on the

Postal Service case will begin 35 days

after the filing of an Express Mail

Market Response Rate Request; parties

may file evidence either in support of or

in opposition to the Postal Service

proposal 49 days after the filing;

hearings on the parties’ evidence will

begin 56 days after the filing; briefs will

be due 70 days after the filing; and reply

briefs will be due 77 days after the

filing.

(6) The Presiding Officer may adjust

any of the schedule dates prescribed in

(e)(5) of this section in the interests of

fairness, or to assist in the development

of an adequate evidentiary record.

Requests for the opportunity to present

evidence to rebut a submission by a

participant other than the Postal Service

should be filed within three working

days of the receipt of that material into

the evidentiary record, and should

include a description of the evidence to

be offered and the amount of time

needed to prepare and present it.

Requests for additional time will be

reviewed with consideration as to

whether the requesting participant has

exercised due diligence, and whether

the requesting participant has been

unreasonably delayed from fully

understanding the proposal.

§ 3001.57c Express Mail Market

Response—rule for decision.

The Commission will issue a

recommended decision in accordance

with the policies of 39 U.S.C., and

which it determines would be a

reasonable response to the change in the

market for expedited delivery services.

The purpose of §§ 3001.57 through

3001.57c is to allow for consideration of

Express Mail Market Response Rate

Requests within 90 days, consistent

with the procedural due process rights

of interested persons.

Issued by the Commission on February 17,

1995.

Margaret P. Crenshaw,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–5115 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 95–3–6638a; FRL–5159–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. The

revisions concern a rule from the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (SJVUAPCD). The

revised rule controls emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

from in-situ combustion well vents.

This approval action will incorporate

this rule into the Federally approved

SIP. The intended effect of approving

this rule is to regulate VOC emissions in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). In addition, the final

action on this rule serves as a final

determination that the finding of

nonsubmittal for this rule has been

corrected and that on the effective date

of this action, any Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) clock is

stopped. Thus, EPA is finalizing the

approval of these revisions into the

California SIP under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: This fnal rule is effective on May

5, 1995 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by April 5, 1995.

If the effective date is delayed, a timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revisions

and EPA’s evaluation report for the rule

are available for public inspection at

EPA’s Region IX office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted

rule revisions are available for

inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 92123–1095.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1999

Tuolumne Street, suite 200, Fresno,

CA 93721.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae

Wang, Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air

and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rule being approved into the

California SIP is SJVUAPCD Rule 4407,

In-Situ Combustion Well Vents. This

rule was submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on July

13, 1994.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 Act or

pre-amended Act), that included the

San Joaquin Valley Area which

encompassed the following eight air

pollution control districts (APCDs):

Fresno County APCD, Kern County
12122 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1At that time, Kern County included portions of

two air basins: the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and

the Southeast Desert Air Basin. The San Joaquin

Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County was

designated as nonattainment, and the Southeast

Desert Air Basin portion of Kern County was

designated as unclassified. See 40 CFR 81.305

(1991).

2This extension was not requested for the

following counties: Kern, King, Madera, Merced,

and Tulare. Thus, the attainment date for these

counties remained December 31, 1982.

3Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘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 was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing control technique guidelines

(CTGs).

4The San Joaquin Valley Area retained its

designation of nonattainment and was classified by

operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and

181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See

55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

5California did not make the required SIP

submittals by November 15, 1992. On January 15,

1993, the EPA made a finding of failure to make a

submittal pursuant to section 179(a)(1), which

started an 18-month sanction clock. The rule being

acted on in this Notice of Direct Final Rulemaking

was submitted in response to the EPA finding of

failure to submit.

6EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

APCD,1 Kings County APCD, Madera

County APCD, Merced County APCD,

San Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus

County APCD, and Tulare County

APCD. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305.

Because some of these areas were

unable to meet the statutory attainment

date of December 31, 1982, California

requested under section 172(a)(2), and

EPA approved, an extension of the

attainment date to December 31, 1987.2

40 CFR 52.222. On May 26, 1988, EPA

notified the Governor of California,

pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

1977 Act, that the above districts’

portions of the California SIP were

inadequate to attain and maintain the

ozone standard and requested that

deficiencies in the existing SIP be

corrected (EPA’s SIP-Call). On

November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act

Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q. In

amended section 182(b)(2)(C) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily required

nonattainment areas to submit

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rules for all major sources of

VOCs by November 15, 1992 (the RACT

catch-up requirement).

On March 20, 1991, the SJVUAPCD

was formed. The SJVUAPCD has

authority over the San Joaquin Valley

Air Basin which includes all of the

above eight counties except for the

Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of

Kern County. Thus, Kern County Air

Pollution Control District still exists, but

only has authority over the Southeast

Desert Air Basin portion of Kern

County.

Section 182(b)(2) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as moderate or above as of the

date of enactment. It requires such areas

to adopt RACT rules pursuant to section

172(b) as interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance.3 The San Joaquin Valley Area

is classified as serious 4; therefore, this

area was subject to the RACT catch-up

requirement and the November 15, 1992

deadline.5

The State of California submitted

many RACT rules for incorporation into

its SIP on July 13, 1994, including the

rule being acted on in this document.

This document addresses EPA’s directfinal action for SJVUAPCD Rule 4407,

In-situ Combustion Well Vents. The

SJVUAPCD adopted Rule 4407 on May

19, 1994. This submitted rule was found

to be complete on July 22, 1994

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51

Appendix V 6 and is being finalized for

approval into the SIP.

Rule 4407 controls emissions of VOCs

from crude oil production wells where

production has been enhanced by the

heat of combustion resulting from air

injected into the oil reservoir. VOCs

contribute to the production of ground

level ozone and smog. This rule was

adopted as part of the SJVUAPCD’s

effort to achieve the National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

ozone and in response to the section

182(b)(2)(C) CAA requirement. The

following is EPA’s evaluation and final

action for this rule.

EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote

3. Among those provisions is the

requirement that a VOC rule must, at a

minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the

pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared a series of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

The CTGs are based on the underlying

requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for what is RACT

for specific source categories. Under the

CAA, Congress ratified EPA’s use of

these documents, as well as other

Agency policy, for requiring States to

‘‘catch-up’’ their RACT rules. See

section 182(b)(2). For some source

categories, such as in-situ combustion

well vents, EPA has not published a

CTG. In such cases, the air pollution

control agency may determine what

controls are required to satisfy the

RACT requirement by reviewing the

operations of facilities within the

affected source category. In that review,

the technological and economic

feasibility of the proposed controls are

considered. Additionally, for both CTG

and non-CTG rules, the air pollution

control agency may rely on EPA policy

documents, such as the Blue Book, to

ensure that the adopted VOC rules are

fully enforceable and strengthen or

maintain the SIP.

SJVUAPCD’s submitted Rule 4407, InSitu Combustion Well Vents, is a new

rule which controls VOC emissions

from well vents by requiring either the

use of an emissions control device

which reduces well vent emissions by

85%, or routing emissions to fuel

burning equipment or a smokeless flare.

Rule 4407 also requires leak inspection

and repair, annual compliance testing of

control systems, and recordkeeping for

operations, inspections and

maintenance.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is consistent

with the CAA, EPA regulations, and

EPA policy. Therefore, SJVUAPCD is

being approved under section 110(k)(3)

of the CAA as meeting the requirements

of section 110(a) and Part D. If this

direct final action is not withdrawn, on

May 5, 1995, any FIP clock is stopped.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this document

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 43 / Monday, March 6, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 12123

1 On February 12, 1993, Massachusetts revised

310 CMR 7.18(17) to apply to 50 ton per year

facilities pursuant to Section 182 of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990. This revised rule has not

yet been approved into the Massachusetts SIP.

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective May 5, 1995,

unless, by April 5, 1995, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective May 5, 1995.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C.

§§ 603 and 604. Alternatively, EPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises and government

entities with jurisdiction over

population of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose

any new requirements, I certify that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

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

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 8, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(198)(i)(C) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(198) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District

(1) Rule 4407, adopted on May 19,

1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–5342 Filed 3–3–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[MA–30–1–6846a; A–1–FRL–5158–4]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Massachusetts; VOC RACT for Brittany

Dyeing and Printing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts. This revision consists of

a reasonably available control

technology (RACT) Plan Approval for

controlling volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions from Brittany Dyeing

and Printing Corporation of New

Bedford, Massachusetts. The intended

effect of this action is to approve a

source-specific RACT determination

made by the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts in accordance with

commitments of its approved 1982

ozone attainment plan. This action is

being taken in accordance with the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective May 5,

1995, unless notice is received by April

5, 1995 that adverse or critical

comments will be submitted. If the

effective date is delayed, timely notice

will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

Linda M. Murphy, Director, Air,

Pesticides and Toxics Management

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region I, JFK Federal Building,

Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the

documents relevant to this action are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours, by appointment

at the Air, Pesticides and Toxics

Management Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region I, One Congress Street, 10th

floor, Boston, MA; Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW., (LE–131), Washington,

DC 20460; and Division of Air Quality

Control, Department of Environmental

Protection, One Winter Street, 8th Floor,

Boston, MA 02108.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Anne E. Arnold, (617) 565–3166.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March

31, 1994, the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts submitted a formal

revision to its State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The SIP revision consists of

a reasonably available control

technology (RACT) Plan Approval for

controlling volatile organic compound

(VOC) emissions from Brittany Dyeing

and Printing Corporation of New

Bedford, Massachusetts.

Background Information

On November 9, 1983 (48 FR 51480),

EPA approved Massachusetts

Regulation 310 CMR 7.18(17)

‘‘Reasonably Available Control

Technology,’’ as part of the

Commonwealth of Massachusetts 1982

ozone attainment plan. This regulation

requires the Massachusetts Department

of Environmental Protection to

determine and impose RACT on all

facilities with the potential to emit one

hundred tons per year or more of VOC

that are not already subject to

Massachusetts’ regulations developed

pursuant to the EPA Control Techniques

Guideline (CTG) documents.1

Summary of SIP Revision

On March 31, 1994, Massachusetts

submitted a RACT Plan Approval for

Brittany Dyeing and Printing. EPA has

reviewed this Plan Approval against the