You are on page 1of 5

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No.

143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 38561

prepenalty notice was served upon the Subpart H—Procedures ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
respondent in care of the representative. AGENCY
§ 540.801 Procedures.
§ 540.704 Penalty imposition or 40 CFR Part 52
withdrawal. For license application procedures
and procedures relating to amendments,
(a) No violation. If, after considering modifications, or revocations of [CA 210–0285; FRL–7013–4]
any response to the prepenalty notice licenses; administrative decisions;
and any relevant facts, the Director of Revision to the California State
rulemaking; and requests for documents
the Office of Foreign Assets Control Implementation Plan, Bay Area Air
pursuant to the Freedom of Information Quality Management District, Lake
determines that there was no violation and Privacy Acts (5 U.S.C. 552 and
by the respondent named in the County Air Quality Management
552a), see subpart D of part 501 of this District, Monterey Bay Unified Air
prepenalty notice, the Director shall chapter. Pollution Control District, Sacramento
notify the respondent in writing of that
§ 540.802 Delegation by the Secretary of Metropolitan Air Quality Management
determination and the cancellation of District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
the proposed monetary penalty. the Treasury.
Pollution Control District
(b) Violation. (1) If, after considering Any action that the Secretary of the
any written response to the prepenalty Treasury is authorized to take pursuant AGENCY: Environmental Protection
notice, or default in the submission of to Executive Order 13159 of June 21, Agency (EPA).
a written response, and any relevant 2000 (65 FR 39279, June 26, 2000) and ACTION: Final rule.
facts, the Director of the Office of any further executive orders relating to
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited
Foreign Assets Control determines that the national emergency declared in
approval and limited disapproval of a
there was a violation by the respondent Executive Order 13159 may be taken by
revision to the Bay Area Air Quality
named in the prepenalty notice, the the Director of the Office of Foreign
Management District (BAAQMD), Lake
Director is authorized to issue a written Assets Control or by any other person to County Air Quality Management District
penalty notice to the respondent of the whom the Secretary of the Treasury has (LCAQMD), Monterey Bay Unified Air
determination of violation and the delegated authority so to act. Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD),
imposition of the monetary penalty. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality
Subpart I—Paperwork Reduction Act
(2) The penalty notice shall inform Management District (SMAQMD), and
the respondent that payment or § 540.901 Paperwork Reduction Act notice. San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
arrangement for installment payment of Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
the assessed penalty must be made For approval by the Office of portions of the California State
within 30 days of the date of mailing of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) Implementation Plan (SIP). This action
the penalty notice by the Office of under the Paperwork Reduction Act of was proposed in the Federal Register on
Foreign Assets Control. 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507) of information November 14, 2000 and concerns
collections relating to recordkeeping volatile organic compound (VOC)
(3) The penalty notice shall inform and reporting requirements, licensing emissions from the transfer of gasoline
the respondent of the requirement to procedures (including those pursuant to at gasoline dispensing stations. Under
furnish the respondent’s taxpayer statements of licensing policy), and authority of the Clean Air Act as
identification number pursuant to 31 other procedures, see 501.901 of this amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this
U.S.C. 7701 and that such number will chapter. An agency may not conduct or action directs California to correct rule
be used for purposes of collecting and sponsor, and a person is not required to deficiencies.
reporting on any delinquent penalty respond to, a collection of information EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on
amount. unless it displays a valid control August 24, 2001.
(4) The issuance of the penalty notice number assigned by OMB. ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of
finding a violation and imposing a the administrative record for this action
Dated: June 6, 2001.
monetary penalty shall constitute final at EPA’s Region IX office during normal
agency action. The respondent has the Loren L. Dohm,
business hours. You can inspect copies
right to seek judicial review of that final Acting Director, Office of Foreign Assets
of the submitted rule revisions at the
agency action in a federal district court. Control.
following locations:
Approved: June 25, 2001.
§ 540.705 Administrative collection; Environmental Protection Agency,
James F. Sloan, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
referral to United States Department of
Justice. Acting Under Secretary (Enforcement), Francisco, CA 94105
Department of the Treasury. Environmental Protection Agency, Air
In the event that the respondent does [FR Doc. 01–18372 Filed 7–24–01; 8:45 am] Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,
not pay the penalty imposed pursuant to BILLING CODE 4810–25–P 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
this part or make payment arrangements Washington DC 20460
acceptable to the Director of the Office California Air Resources Board,
of Foreign Assets Control within 30 Stationary Source Division, Rule
days of the date of mailing of the Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,
penalty notice, the matter may be Sacramento, CA 95814
referred for administrative collection Bay Area Air Quality Management
measures by the Department of the District, 939 Ellis Street, San
Treasury or to the United States Francisco, CA 94105
Department of Justice for appropriate Lake County Air Quality Management
action to recover the penalty in a civil District, 883 Lakeport Boulevard,
suit in a federal district court. Lakeport, CA 95453

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:37 Jul 24, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 25JYR1
38562 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al I. Proposed Action
Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),
Court, Monterey, CA 93940 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, On November 14, 2000 (65 FR 68114),
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Region IX; (415) 744–1135. EPA proposed a limited approval and
Management District, 8411 Jackson limited disapproval of the rules in Table
Road, Sacramento, CA 95826 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 1 that were submitted for incorporation
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ into the California SIP.
Pollution Control District, 1990 East and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES’
Local agency Rule no. Rule Title Adopted Submitted

BAAQMD 8–7 Gasoline Dispensing Facilities ......................................................................... 11/17/99 3/28/00
LCAQMD 439.5 Retail Gasoline Service Stations ...................................................................... 07/15/97 05/18/98
MBUAPCD 1002 Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks .................................................. 04/21/99 06/03/99
SMAQMD 449 Transfer of Gasoline into Vehicle Fuel Tanks .................................................. 04/03/97 05/18/98
SJVUAPCD 4622 Gasoline Transfer into Vehicle Fuel Tanks ...................................................... 06/18/98 08/21/98

We proposed a limited approval 94006 list, and that this situation other year for all stations with In-Station
because we determined that these rules presents an enforceability problem for Diagnostics.
improve the SIP and are largely the District. If Rule 8–7 cites only the BAAQMD suggests that having testing
consistent with the relevant CAA CCR and the CCR list is not revised, the and notification requirements in the
requirements. We simultaneously District would not have the authority to Authority to Construct and the Permit to
proposed a limited disapproval because require that operators remedy new Operate is a practical way to incorporate
some rule provisions conflict with system defects that are not in the CCR the individual requirements that apply
section 110 and part D of the Act. Our list. BAAQMD states that all substantial to specific systems and allow the
proposed action contains more defects would be subject to the rule by District flexibility to address problems
information on the rules and our referencing CH&SC 41960.2(c). in certain systems.
evaluation. Response: Enforceability is also a Response: EPA concurs that
concern for EPA. We require for clarity specifying one testing frequency for all
II. Public Comments and EPA and for federal enforceability that the equipment may not be necessary or
Responses system defects that substantially impair efficient. However, we believe that
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- the effectiveness of the system be listed BAAQMD’s comment supports our
day public comment period. During this or referenced in a readily-available conclusion that reverification testing
period, we received comments from the public document. Two alternate ways to every five years or longer is inadequate.
following parties: handle the enforceability problem are as While we understand that it is not
• Peter Hess, BAAQMD; letter dated follows: current practice to allow such an
December 12, 2000 and received on • List all substantial system defects to extended time for reverification testing
December 14, 2000. be remedied in Rule 8–7. in the BAAQMD, the current text of
• Scott Nester, SJVUAPCD; letter dated • Reference both CCR, title 17, section Rule 8–7 would not prevent it in all
December 8, 2000 and received on 94006, and CH&SC 41960.2(c). We cases. Rule 8–7 should be revised,
December 11, 2000. note that CARB is currently updating therefore, to require more frequent
The BAAQMD comments and our the CCR list as required by CH&SC regular reverification. In general, we
responses are summarized below. 41960.2. believe that six to twelve months is an
Comment I: BAAQMD disagrees that Comment II: BAAQMD disagrees with appropriate reverification frequency. If
it is appropriate to cite the California including specific testing requirements the District wishes to maintain
Code of Regulations (CCR), title 17, in Rule 8–7. There are over 100 CARB- flexibility to change reverification
section 94006, instead of Calfornia certified vapor recovery systems, for frequency, the rule should specify the
Health and Safety Code (CH&SC) which stating individual testing criteria that would be used in exercising
41960.2(c), as a reference for a list of requirements would be unwieldy. this flexibility.
vapor recovery system defects that BAAQMD also disagrees with specifying We note that the South Coast Air
substantially impair the effectiveness of a specific time period for reverification Quality Management District has
the system. BAAQMD notes that CCR, of performance tests. Some relatively estimated that reverification testing
title 17, section 94006 has not been reliable systems may be tested too often, every six months costs about $0.0012
revised since 1981 but that CH&SC thereby unnecessarily increasing per gallon of gasoline dispensed. This
41960.2 was revised in the year 2000 by gasoline emissions during the test does not appear to be an unreasonable
Assembly Bill 1164 to include the procedure. Other unreliable systems financial burden.
requirement that substantial defects may not be tested often enough, thereby We also note that the suggestion of
‘‘shall be specified in the applicable allowing an increase of emissions having testing and notification
certification documents for each during normal operation. requirements only in the Permit to
system.’’ It is likely that some new BAAQMD believes that an arbitrary Operate has not in the past resulted in
defects will be listed only in California testing frequency may impose a a satisfactory testing frequency in
Air Resources Board (CARB) Executive financial hardship on businesses that Districts with rule language similar to
Orders (EO) for certifications. BAAQMD have chosen a more reliable system. BAAQMD’s.
states that it is unclear whether CARB BAAQMD states that there is no data The SJVUAPCD comments and our
will update the CCR, title 17, section to justify testing as infrequently as every responses are summarized below.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:37 Jul 24, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 38563

Comment I: SJVUAPCD has concurred Removal Rate Test, if the District the regulatory action meets both criteria,
with EPA’s recommendations regarding specifies in the rule the procedure for the Agency must evaluate the
four improvements to Rule 4922 as determining where it could be waived. environmental health or safety effects of
follows: See Response to BAAQMD Comment the planned rule on children, and
• Correction of the CCR reference for II for additional comments regarding explain why the planned regulation is
CARB certification procedures to flexibility of reverification test preferable to other potentially effective
CCR, title 17, section 94011. frequencies. and reasonably feasible alternatives
• Addition of a requirement to keep considered by the Agency.
III. EPA Action
maintenance records and
Comments submitted by the This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045
reverification test records for two
BAAQMD and SJVUAPCD changed our because it does not involve decisions
years.
• Revision of the requirement that new recommendations on how to revise the intended to mitigate environmental
vapor recovery equipment be tested at rules but did not change our proposed health or safety risks.
least within the number of days action on the rules. Therefore, as C. Executive Order 13132
required by the SIP rule. authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and
• Stating the specific EPA-approved test 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing a Executive Order 13132, entitled
method(s) to be used for air-to-liquid limited approval of the submitted rules. Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
volume ratio. This action incorporates the submitted 1999) revokes and replaces Executive
Comment II: SJVUAPCD believes that rules into the California SIP, including Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,
reverification of Dyamic Back-Pressure those provisions identified as deficient. Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Test and Static Leak Test annually is As authorized under section 110(k)(3), Partnership. E.O. 13132 requires EPA to
adequate and is consistent with the EPA is simultaneously finalizing a develop an accountable process to
California Air Pollution Control limited disapproval of the submitted ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by
Officers’ Association Vapor Recovery rules. As a result, sanctions will be State and local officials in the
Committee’s recommendations to imposed on the BAAQMD, SMAQMD, development of regulatory policies that
improve the performance of existing and SJVUAPCD unless EPA approves have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies
systems. The reverification of Air-to- subsequent SIP revisions that correct the that have federalism implications’’ is
Liquid Ratio would be done every six rule deficiencies within 18 months of defined in the Executive Order to
months, because this is currently the effective date of this action. These include regulations that have
required by Operating Permits. The sanctions will be imposed under section ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States,
District agrees that, if In-Station 179 of the CAA as described in 59 FR on the relationship between the national
Diagnostics are used, the above 39832 (August 4, 1994). In addition, government and the States, or on the
reverification tests should be done every EPA must promulgate a federal distribution of power and
two years. implementation plan (FIP) under responsibilities among the various
However, SJVUAPCD believes that section 110(c) unless we approve levels of government.’’ Under E.O.
reverification of Liquid Removal Rate subsequent SIP revisions that correct the 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation
should only be done if there is an rule deficiencies within 24 months. that has federalism implications, that
indication of pressure fluctuation Sanctions will not be imposed on imposes substantial direct compliance
during the Dynamic Back Pressure Test LCAQMD and MBUAPCD, because they costs, and that is not required by statute,
or if fuel drains from the dispensing are an ozone attainment area and
unless the Federal government provides
nozzle when the vapor check valve is maintenance attainment area,
the funds necessary to pay the direct
opened. The absence of both of these respectively. Note that the submitted
compliance costs incurred by State and
observations is a good indication that rules have been adopted by BAAQMD,
local governments, or EPA consults with
the liquid removal system is functioning LCAQMD, MBUAPCD, SMAQMD, and
State and local officials early in the
properly, and therefore a specific testing SJVUAPCD, and EPA’s final limited
disapproval does not prevent the local process of developing the proposed
frequency would not be appropriate. regulation. EPA also may not issue a
District staff intends to include this agency from enforcing them.
regulation that has federalism
procedure in the rule as a method of IV. Administrative Requirements implications and that preempts State
determining whether the Liquid law unless the Agency consults with
Removal Rate Test needs to be A. Executive Order 12866
State and local officials early in the
conducted in conjunction with the The Office of Management and Budget process of developing the proposed
Dynamic Back-Pressure Test and Static (OMB) has exempted this regulatory regulation.
Leak Test. action from Executive Order (E.O.)
Response: The reverification test 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning This rule will not have substantial
frequencies suggested are within the and Review.’’ direct effects on the States, on the
range of EPA recommendations. It relationship between the national
should be noted that In-Station B. Executive Order 13045 government and the States, or on the
Diagnostics is a relatively new Executive Order 13045, entitled distribution of power and
technology for use in gasoline Protection of Children from responsibilities among the various
dispensing facilities. Recommending a Environmental Health Risks and Safety levels of government, as specified in
lesser frequency of testing at this time Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), E.O. 13132, because it merely acts on a
may be appropriate to encourage its use. applies to any rule that: (1) Is state rule implementing a federal
But subsequent experience with its use determined to be ‘‘economically standard, and does not alter the
could show that the recommended significant’’ as defined under E.O. relationship or the distribution of power
frequency should be adjusted. 12866, and (2) concerns an and responsibilities established in the
Assuming adequate support in the environmental health or safety risk that Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of
District Staff Report, the District could EPA has reason to believe may have a section 6 of the Executive Order do not
waive the reverification of the Liquid disproportionate effect on children. If apply to this rule.

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:37 Jul 24, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 25JYR1
38564 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

D. Executive Order 13175 not have a significant economic impact H. Submission to Congress and the
Executive Order 13175, entitled on a substantial number of small Comptroller General
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with entities. The Congressional Review Act, 5
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR Moreover, due to the nature of the U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA Federal-State relationship under the Business Regulatory Enforcement
to develop an accountable process to Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by analysis would constitute Federal that before a rule may take effect, the
tribal officials in the development of inquiry into the economic agency promulgating the rule must
regulatory policies that have tribal reasonableness of state action. The submit a rule report, which includes a
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have tribal Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its copy of the rule, to each House of the
implications’’ is defined in the actions concerning SIPs on such Congress and to the Comptroller General
Executive Order to include regulations grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, of the United States. EPA will submit a
that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. report containing this rule and other
one or more Indian tribes, on the 7410(a)(2). required information to the U.S. Senate,
relationship between the Federal F. Unfunded Mandates the U.S. House of Representatives, and
government and the Indian tribes, or on the Comptroller General of the United
the distribution of power and Under section 202 of the Unfunded States prior to publication of the rule in
responsibilities between the Federal Mandates Reform Act of 1995 the Federal Register. A major rule
government and Indian tribes.’’ (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed cannot take effect until 60 days after it
This final rule does not have tribal into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must is published in the Federal Register.
implications. It will not have substantial prepare a budgetary impact statement to This rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as
direct effects on tribal governments, on accompany any proposed or final rule defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
the relationship between the Federal that includes a Federal mandate that
I. Petitions for Judicial Review
government and Indian tribes, or on the may result in estimated costs to State,
distribution of power and local, or tribal governments in the Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
responsibilities between the Federal
million or more. Under section 205, this action must be filed in the United
government and Indian tribes, as
EPA must select the most cost-effective States Court of Appeals for the
specified in Executive Order 13175.
and least burdensome alternative that appropriate circuit by September 24,
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
achieves the objectives of the rule and 2001. Filing a petition for
apply to this rule.
is consistent with statutory reconsideration by the Administrator of
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act requirements. Section 203 requires EPA this final rule does not affect the finality
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) to establish a plan for informing and of this rule for the purposes of judicial
generally requires an agency to conduct advising any small governments that review nor does it extend the time
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any may be significantly or uniquely within which a petition for judicial
rule subject to notice and comment impacted by the rule. review may be filed, and shall not
rulemaking requirements unless the EPA has determined that the approval postpone the effectiveness of such rule
action promulgated does not include a or action. This action may not be
agency certifies that the rule will not
Federal mandate that may result in challenged later in proceedings to
have a significant economic impact on
estimated costs of $100 million or more enforce its requirements. (See section
a substantial number of small entities.
to either State, local, or tribal 307(b)(2).)
Small entities include small businesses,
small not-for-profit enterprises, and governments in the aggregate, or to the List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
small governmental jurisdictions. private sector. This Federal action acts Environmental protection, Air
This final rule will not have a on pre-existing requirements under pollution control, Incorporation by
significant impact on a substantial State or local law, and imposes no new reference, Intergovernmental relations,
number of small entities because SIP requirements. Accordingly, no Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
approvals under section 110 and additional costs to State, local, or tribal requirements, Volatile organic
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act governments, or to the private sector, compounds.
do not create any new requirements but result from this action.
Dated: June 8, 2001.
simply act on requirements that the G. National Technology Transfer and
State is already imposing. Therefore, Keith Takata,
Advancement Act Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
because the Federal SIP approval does
not create any new requirements, I Section 12 of the National Technology Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
certify that this action will not have a Transfer and Advancement Act of Federal Regulations is amended as
significant economic impact on a (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal follows:
substantial number of small entities. agencies to evaluate existing technical
EPA’s disapproval of the state request standards when developing a new PART 52—[AMENDED]
under section 110 and subchapter I, part regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 1. The authority citation for Part 52
D of the Clean Air Act does not affect EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary continues to read as follows:
any existing requirements applicable to consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available
and applicable when developing Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
small entities. Any pre-existing federal
requirements remain in place after this programs and policies unless doing so Subpart F—California
disapproval. Federal disapproval of the would be inconsistent with applicable
state submittal does not affect state law or otherwise impractical. 2. Section 52.220 is amended by
enforceability. Moreover, EPA’s EPA believes that VCS are adding paragraphs (c)(255)(i)(A)(5),
disapproval of the submittal does not inapplicable to today’s action because it (c)(255)(i)(D)(2), (c)(264)(i)(D)(1),
impose any new Federal requirements. does not require the public to perform (c)(273)(i)(A)(2), and (c)(277)(i)(C)(6) to
Therefore, I certify that this action will activities conducive to the use of VCS. read as follows:

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:37 Jul 24, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 25JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 143 / Wednesday, July 25, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 38565

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Arizona Department of Environmental
* * * * * AGENCY Quality, 3033 North Central Avenue,
Phoenix, AZ 85012.
(c) * * *
40 CFR Part 52 Pinal County Air Quality Control District,
(255) * * * Building F, 31 North Pinal Street, Florence,
[AZ 099–0039; FRL–7013–3] AZ 85232.
(i) * * *
(A) * * * Revisions to the Arizona State FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al
(5) Rule 449, adopted on April 3, Implementation Plan, Pinal-Gila Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),
1997. Counties Air Quality Control District Air Division, U.S. Environmental
(D) * * * and Pinal County Air Quality Control Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
District Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
(2) Section (Rule) 439.5, adopted on
July 15, 1997. AGENCY: Environmental Protection 94105; (415) 744–1135.
* * * * * Agency (EPA). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
ACTION: Final rule. Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
(264) * * *
(i) * * * SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
(D) Monterey Bay Unified Air recisions of Pinal-Gila Counties Air I. Proposed Action
Pollution Control District. Pollution Control District (PGCAQCD)
rules from the Arizona Department of On May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21675), EPA
(1) Rule 1002, adopted on April 21, published a direct final approval to
Environmental Quality (ADEQ) portion
1999. rescind PGCAQCD rules in tables 1
(with respect to Gila County) and the
* * * * * Pinal County Air Pollution Control through 6 from the Arizona SIP. We
(273) * * * District (PCAQCD) portion of the received adverse comments on this
(i) * * * Arizona State Implementation Plan action and withdrew the direct final
(SIP). These revisions were proposed in approval on June 20, 2001 (66 FR
(A) * * * 33029). On May 1, 2001 (66 FR 21727),
the Federal Register on May 1, 2001.
(2) Rule 4622, adopted on June 18, EPA also published a proposal notice to
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on
1998. August 24, 2001. rescind these SIP rules. Today’s action
* * * * * ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of addresses the comments and finalizes
(277) * * * the administrative record for this action the proposed approval to rescind the
(i) * * * at EPA’s Region IX office during normal SIP rules.
(C) * * * business hours. You can inspect copies The PGCAQCD SIP rules in table 7
of the submitted rule revisions at the were submitted by ADEQ for recision
(6) Rule 8–7, adopted on November but are already rescinded in previous
following locations:
17, 1999. actions with respect to both Gila County
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
* * * * * Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 and PCAQCD. These rules are listed in
[FR Doc. 01–18411 Filed 7–24–01; 8:45 am] Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, table 7 for clarity only, and we will take
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P D.C. 20460. no further action on them.

TABLE 1.—PGCAQCD RULES (PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED ON JULY 1, 1975, APPROVED ON NOVEMBER 15, 1978, 43 FR
53031) FOR RESCISSION WITH RESPECT TO BOTH GILA COUNTY AND PCAQCD
PGCAQCD Replacement Replacement
SIP rule Rule title ADEQ SIP PCAQCD SIP
number rule number rule number

7–1–1.1 ........ Policy and Legal Authority ............................................................................................................... (Note 1) ........ (Note 1)
7–1–1.3 ........ Air Pollution Prohibited .................................................................................................................... (Note 1) ........ (Note 1)
7–1–2.5(A) .... Permits: Transfer ............................................................................................................................. R9–3–317 .... 3–1–090
7–1–2.5(B) .... Permits: Expiration ........................................................................................................................... R9–3–306 .... 3–1–089
7–1–2.5(C) ... Permits: Posting ............................................................................................................................... R9–3–315 .... (Note 1)
7–1–2.6 ........ Recordkeeping and Reporting ......................................................................................................... R9–3–308, 3–1–103,
R9–3–314. 3–1–170
7–2–1.1 ........ Non-Specific Particulate ................................................................................................................... R9–3–201 .... 2–1–020
7–2–1.2 ........ Sulfur Dioxide ................................................................................................................................... R9–3–202 2–1–030
(Note 2).
7–2–1.4 ........ Photochemical Oxidants .................................................................................................................. R9–3–204 .... 2–1–040
7–2–1.5 ........ Carbon Monoxide ............................................................................................................................. R9–3–205 .... 2–1–050
7–2–1.6 ........ Nitrogen Dioxide .............................................................................................................................. R9–3–206 .... 2–1–060
7–2–1.7 ........ Evaluation ........................................................................................................................................ R9–3–216 .... 2–3–110
7–3–1.6 ........ Reduction of Animal or Vegetable Matter ....................................................................................... (Note 1) ........ (Note 1)

VerDate 11<MAY>2000 16:37 Jul 24, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\25JYR1.SGM pfrm03 PsN: 25JYR1