Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20453

Subpart J—Action by the Board

45. Section 20.900 is amended by

revising paragraph (b) and the authority

citation, and by adding a new paragraph

(d) to read as follows:

§ 20.900 Rule 900. Order of consideration

of appeals.

* * * * *

(b) Appeals considered in docket

order. Appeals are considered in the

order in which they are entered on the

docket, except as provided in

paragraphs (c) and (d).

* * * * *

(d) Consideration of appeals

remanded by the United States Court of

Veterans Appeals. A case remanded by

the United States Court of Veterans

Appeals for additional development or

other appropriate action will be treated

expeditiously by the Board without

regard to its place on the Board’s docket.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7107, Pub. Law No.

103–446 § 302)

46. Section 20.901(e) is revised to

read as follows:

§ 20.901 Rule 901. Medical opinions and

opinions of the General Counsel.

* * * * *

(e) For purposes of this section, the

term ‘‘the Board’’ includes the

Chairman, the Vice Chairman, any

Deputy Vice Chairman, and any

Member of the Board before whom a

case is pending.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5107(a), 7104(c), 7109)

Subpart K—Reconsideration

47. Section 20.1003 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 20.1003 Rule 1003. Hearings on

reconsideration.

After a motion for reconsideration has

been allowed, a hearing will be granted

if an appellant requests a hearing before

the Board. The hearing will be held by

a Member or Members assigned to the

reconsideration panel. A hearing will

not normally be scheduled solely for the

purpose of receiving argument by a

representative. Such argument should

be submitted in the form of a written

brief. Oral argument may also be

submitted on audio cassette for

transcription for the record in

accordance with Rule 700(d)

(§ 20.700(d) of this part). Requests for

appearances by representatives alone to

personally present argument to a

Member or panel of Members of the

Board may be granted if good cause is

shown. Whether good cause has been

shown will be determined by the

presiding Member.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7102, 7103, 7105(a))

Subpart L—Finality

48. In section 20.1100(a), the last

sentence is amended by removing

‘‘Section’’ and adding, in its place,

‘‘Panel’’; and the first sentence is

revised to read as follows:

§ 20.1100 Rule 1100. Finality of decisions

of the Board.

(a) General. All decisions of the Board

will be stamped with the date of mailing

on the face of the decision. * * *

* * * * *

Subpart N—Miscellaneous

§ 20.1304 [Amended]

49. In § 20.1304 paragraph (b) is

amended by removing the next-to-thelast sentence reading ‘‘The ruling on the

motion will be by the Chairman.’’.

[FR Doc. 96–11279 Filed 5–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 095–0008a; FRL–5464–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on a revision to the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP). The

revision concerns a new rule from the

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District (SBCAPCD). This

approval action will incorporate this

rule into the federally approved SIP.

The intended effect of approving this

rule is to regulate emissions of oxides of

nitrogen (NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX),

and volatile organic compounds (VOCs).

This rule controls NOX, SOX, and VOC

emissions from flare and thermal

oxidizer stacks at oil and gas production

industries. Thus, EPA is finalizing the

approval of this rule into the California

SIP under provisions of the Federal

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act) regarding EPA action

on SIP submittals.

DATES: This action is effective on July 8,

1996 unless adverse or critical

comments are received by June 6, 1996.

If the effective date is delayed, a timely

notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule 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 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, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, 26 Casitilian Drive,

B–23, Goleta, CA 93117

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, 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)

744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rule being approved into the

California SIP is SBCAPCD Rule 359,

Flares and Thermal Oxidizers. This rule

was submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on July

13, 1994.

Background

Rule 359 was originally adopted as

part of SBCAPCD’s 1991 Air Quality

Attainment Plan in response to the

California Clean Air Act and is not

required by any specific provision of the

CAA. However, SBCAPCD Rule 359 is

consistent with the goals of the CAA

and EPA policy. In addition, Rule 359

furthers the goals of the Act by

strengthening the SIP. Section 110(a) of

the CAA contains general requirements

for states to submit enforceable

emissions limitations and other control

measures as may be necessary or

appropriate to achieve the goals of the

Act. Rule 359 meets these requirements

by controlling NOX, SOX, and VOC

emissions from flare and thermal

oxidizer stacks at oil and gas production

facilities.

The State of California submitted

many rules for incorporation into its SIP

on July 13, 1994, including the rule

being acted on in this notice. This

notice addresses EPA’s direct-final

action for SBCAPCD Rule 359, Flares
20454 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1EPA 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).

and Thermal Oxidizers. Santa Barbara

County adopted Rule 359 on June 28,

1994. This submitted rule was found to

be complete on September 12, 1994

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 1 and is being finalized for

approval into the SIP.

The following is EPA’s evaluation and

final action for this rule.

EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of

this rule, EPA must evaluate the rule for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and with EPA policy.

SBCAPCD’s submitted Rule 359,

Flares and Thermal Oxidizers includes

the following requirements:

• Fuel sulfur content limits

• The use of technology-based

standards

• A flare minimization plan for all

planned flaring activities

• Emergency events documentation

• Proposes pollutant emission limits

for continuous, planned flaring at

thermal oxidizers and enclosed ground

flares

• Source testing

• Requires monitoring,

recordkeeping, and reporting

For a detailed evaluation of SBCAPCD

Rule 359, please refer to the technical

support document (TSD) dated March

20, 1996.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is consistent

with the goals of the Act, the

requirements of 110(a), and EPA policy.

Therefore, SBCAPCD Rule 359, Flares

and Thermal Oxidizers is being

approved into the federally approved

SIP because of its beneficial effect on

the air quality in the Santa Barbara

County area and its strengthening of the

SIP.

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 notice without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

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 July 8, 1996,

unless, by June 6, 1996, 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 July 8, 1996.

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-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 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).

Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

These rules may bind State, local, and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. The

rule being approved by this action will

impose no new requirements because

affected sources are already subject to

this regulation under State law.

Therefore, no additional costs to State,

local, or tribal governments or to the

private sector result from this action.

EPA has also determined that this final

action does not include a mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order

12866 review.

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: April 18, 1996.

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)(K)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(198) * * *

(i) * * *

(K) * * *
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 89 / Tuesday, May 7, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 20455

1The East St. Louis moderate ozone

nonattainment area consists of Madison, Monroe,

and St. Clair counties.

(2) Rule 359, adopted on June 28,

1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–11204 Filed 5–6–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[IL18–7–7024a; FRL–5436–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: On October 21, 1993, the

Illinois Environmental Protection (IEPA)

submitted to USEPA volatile organic

compound (VOC) rules that were

intended to satisfy part of the

requirements of section 182(b)(2) of the

Clean Air Act (Act) amendments of

1990. Rules submitted at that time

include control requirements for certain

major sources in the East St. Louis

nonattainment area not covered by a

Control Technique Guideline (CTG)

document. These major non-CTG VOC

rules apply to sources which emit (at

maximum capacity) 100 tons of VOC per

year. These rules provide an

environmental benefit due to the

imposition of additional control

requirements. This rulemaking action

approves, in final, Illinois’ rules for

major non-CTG sources in the East St.

Louis nonattainment area. The rationale

for the conditional approval is set forth

in this final rule; additional information

is available at the address indicated

below. Elsewhere in this Federal

Register, USEPA is proposing approval

of and soliciting public comment on this

requested revision to the Illinois State

Implementation Plan (SIP). If adverse

comments are received on this direct

final rule, USEPA will withdraw the

final rule and address the comments

received in a new final rule. Unless this

final rule is withdrawn, no further

rulemaking will occur on this requested

SIP revision.

DATES: This final rule is effective July 8,

1996 unless adverse comments are

received by June 6, 1996. If the effective

date is delayed, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments can be

mailed to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), Air and

Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

Copies of the SIP revision request are

available for inspection at the following

address: (It is recommended that you

telephone Steven Rosenthal at (312)

886–6052 before visiting the Region 5

office.) U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Air Programs Branch

(AR–18J) (312) 886–6052.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Under the Act as amended in 1977,

ozone nonattainment areas were

required to adopt reasonably available

control technology (RACT) for sources

of VOC emissions. USEPA issued three

sets of control technique guidelines

(CTGs) documents, establishing a

‘‘presumptive norm’’ for RACT for

various categories of VOC sources. The

three sets of CTGs were (1) Group I—

issued before January 1978 (15 CTGs);

(2) Group II—issued in 1978 (9 CTGs);

and (3) Group III—issued in the early

1980’s (5 CTGs). Those sources not

covered by a CTG were called non-CTG

sources. USEPA determined that the

area’s SIP-approved attainment date

established which RACT rules the area

needed to adopt and implement. Those

areas (including the East St. Louis area)

that sought an extension of the

attainment date under section 172(a)(2)

to as late as December 31, 1987, were

required to adopt RACT for all CTG

sources and for all major (100 tons per

year or more of VOC emissions) nonCTG sources.

Section 182(b)(2) of the Act as

amended in 1990 (amended Act)

requires States to adopt reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

rules for all areas designated

nonattainment for ozone and classified

as moderate or above. There are three

parts to the section 182(b)(2) RACT

requirement: (1) RACT for sources

covered by an existing CTG—i.e., a CTG

issued prior to the enactment of the

amended Act of 1990; (2) RACT for

sources covered by a post-enactment

CTG; and (3) RACT for all major sources

not covered by a CTG. These section

182(b)(2) RACT requirements are

referred to as the RACT ‘‘catch-up’’

requirements.

The amended Act requires USEPA to

issue CTGs for 13 source categories by

November 15, 1993. A CTG was

published by this date for two source

categories—Synthetic Organic Chemical

Manufacturing Industry (SOCMI)

Reactors and Distillation; however, the

CTGs for the remaining source

categories have not been completed. The

amended Act requires States to submit

rules for sources covered by a postenactment CTG in accordance with a

schedule specified in a CTG document.

Accordingly, States must submit a

RACT rule for SOCMI reactor processes

and distillation operations before March

23, 1995. Illinois has submitted a rule,

covering these SOCMI sources, which

will be the subject of a separate

rulemaking action.

The USEPA developed a CTG

document as Appendix E to the General

Preamble for the Implementation of

Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990. (57 FR 18070, 18077, April 28,

1992). In Appendix E, USEPA

interpreted the Act to allow a State

either to submit a non-CTG rule by

November 15, 1992, or to defer

submittal of a RACT rule for sources

that the State anticipated would be

covered by a post-enactment CTG, based

on the list of CTGs USEPA expected to

issue to meet the requirement in section

183. Appendix E states that if USEPA

fails to issue a CTG by November 15,

1993 (which it did for 11 source

categories), the responsibility shifts to

the State to submit a non-CTG RACT

rule for those sources by November 15,

1994. In accordance with section

182(b)(2), implementation of that RACT

rule should occur by May 31, 1995.

Most of these 11 categories are covered

by Illinois’ ‘‘generic’’ major non-CTG

rules that are the subject of this

document.

On October 21, 1993, IEPA submitted

VOC rules for the East St. Louis ozone

moderate nonattainment area 1 and a

revision to these major non-CTG control

requirements was submitted to USEPA

on May 26, 1995. Most of those rules,

including those which deal with source

categories covered by CTGs, (and the

related test methods, definitions and

recordkeeping requirements) were

approved by USEPA on September 9,

1994 (59 FR 46562). This document

deals with those major non-CTG rules

for the East St. Louis area which are

intended to largely satisfy the major

non-CTG control requirements of

sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(b)(2).

However, this October 21, 1993,

submittal exempts bakeries and sewage

treatment plants from these major nonCTG regulations. Major non-CTG

regulations are, therefore, required for

any major bakeries and industrial

wastewater treatment plants in the East

St. Louis area.