Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio; Final Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compounds, 50711-50713 [2010-19827]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 5, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
■
40 CFR part 52 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 P—Indiana
2. Part 52 is amended by adding a new
§ 52.799 to read as follows:
■
§ 52.799
Transportation conformity.
On June 4, 2010, Indiana submitted
the Transportation Conformity
Consultation SIP consisting of
Metropolitan Planning Organization
resolutions and Memorandums of
Understanding to address interagency
consultation and enforceability of
certain transportation related control
measures and mitigation measures. EPA
is approving the Transportation
Conformity SIP from Indiana.
[FR Doc. 2010–20180 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0003; FRL–
9187–4]
I. What Were EPA’s Proposed Actions?
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. What Actions is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Ohio;
Final Approval and Promulgation of
State Implementation Plans; Carbon
Monoxide and Volatile Organic
Compounds
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
Under section 110(k)(3) of the
Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is
disapproving an Ohio regulation
revision pertaining to volatile organic
compound (VOC) limits for high
performance architectural coatings
contained in Ohio Administrative Code
(OAC) 3745–21–09(U)(1)(h). Under
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, we are
also conditionally approving a revision
of paragraph (BBB)(1) of OAC 3745–21–
09, based on a State commitment to
provide for enforceability of a pertinent
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
limit no later than one year from the
date of EPA’s conditional approval.
DATES: This final rule is effective on
September 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2005–OH–0003. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at
the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Anthony
Maietta, Environmental Protection
Specialist, at (312) 353–8777 before
visiting the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8777,
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Were EPA’s Proposed Actions?
On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 3668),
EPA proposed a variety of actions
regarding revisions to OAC 3745–21,
from submittals dated October 9, 2000,
February 6, 2001, August 3, 2001, and
June 24, 2003. We proposed to (1)
approve into the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) certain revisions in OAC
3745–21 which have been adopted by
the State; (2) disapprove a revision
pertaining to high performance
architectural coatings; (3) conditionally
approve a revision of paragraph
(BBB)(1) of OAC 3745–21–09, if the
State gives EPA a letter that commits to
provide for enforceability of the 1 ton
per year limit no later than one year
from the expected date of EPA’s
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50711
conditional approval; (4) take no action
on certain regulation revisions, and, (5)
provide notice that EPA and Ohio have
created a mechanism to incorporate into
the Ohio SIP permits to facilities
operating under previously issued
alternate VOC limit and emission
control exemptions for miscellaneous
metal coating operations under OAC
3745–21–09(U)(2)(f). For administrative
convenience, in a separate rulemaking
published June 21, 2010, at 75 FR
34939, we approved certain submitted
regulation revisions, took no action on
others, and recognized various emission
control exemptions that have been
granted for miscellaneous metal coating
operations under OAC 3745–21–
09(U)(2)(f). Today’s action makes final
our disapproval and conditional
approval of portions of OAC rule 3745–
21–09. You can learn more information
about the rule revisions submitted and
our evaluation of them in our proposed
action.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a
30-day public comment period. We did
not receive any comments on the
proposed action. On March 1, and July
2, 2010, Ohio EPA committed to remedy
deficiencies in OAC 3745–21–
09(BBB)(1).
III. What Actions is EPA Taking?
EPA is disapproving the coating VOC
content limit for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings
contained in paragraph (U)(1)(h) of OAC
3745–21–09 because the State has not
demonstrated that the relaxation of the
VOC content limit for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings would
not interfere with attainment of the
ozone standard and other requirements.
EPA is conditionally approving a
revision to OAC 3745–21–09(BBB)(1)
provided that the State is able to, within
one year of our final rulemaking, further
revise the paragraph to include test
procedures and recordkeeping
requirements compatible with the
paragraph’s revised emission limit. On
March 1, and July 2, 2010, Ohio EPA
committed to remedy the deficiencies in
this revision. If the State fails to correct
this rule and confirm this correction
within the allowed one year period, this
conditional approval will revert to
disapproval.
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
50712
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
Planning and Review
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.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ‘‘significant
regulatory action’’ under Executive
Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant energy
action,’’ 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).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Because this rule approves preexisting 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).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation
and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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
14:55 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
Executive Order 13045: Protection of
Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
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 approves a
state rule implementing a Federal
Standard.
National Technology Transfer
Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. 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 state submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a
state submission that otherwise satisfies
the provisions of the CAA. 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an
information collection burden under the
provisions of the 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. section 804(2).
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by October 18, 2010. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 3, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
■
40 CFR part 52 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 KK—Ohio
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by
adding paragraph (kk) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1885
Control strategy: Ozone.
*
Congressional Review Act
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
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
levels of government, as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,
August 10, 1999). This action merely
approves a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the
relationship or the distribution of power
and responsibilities established in the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
*
*
*
*
(kk) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving
the coating VOC content limit for high
performance architectural aluminum
coatings contained in paragraph
(U)(1)(h) of chapter 3745–21–09 of the
Ohio Administrative Code.
3. Section 52.1919 is amended by
adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.1919 Identification of plan—
conditional approval.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) On October 9, 2000, the Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency
submitted a revision to Ohio
Administrative Code (OAC) 3745–21–
09(BBB). The revision removed a
requirement that for the agerite resin D
process, the VOC emissions from the
vapor recovery system vents and
neutralization and distillation system
vents (except wash kettle or still feed
condenser vents, stills vacuum jet
tailpipe vents, and process emergency
safety relief devices) be vented to an
emissions control device that is
designed and operated to achieve an
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 158 / Tuesday, August 17, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
emissions control efficiency of at least
90 percent, by weight. In place of this
deleted emissions control efficiency
requirement, the revised paragraph now
specifies a total annual VOC emissions
limit of 1.0 ton from the recovery system
and neutralization and distillation
system vents. The revision lacked test
procedures and record keeping
requirements compatible with the
revised emission limit. On March 1,
2010, Ohio submitted a commitment to
revise OAC 3745–21–09(BBB) to include
the necessary test procedures and record
keeping requirements by September 16,
2011. When EPA determines the state
has met its commitment, OAC 3745–21–
09(BBB) will be incorporated by
reference into the SIP.
[FR Doc. 2010–19827 Filed 8–16–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Federal Emergency Management
Agency
44 CFR Part 204
[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0036]
RIN–1660–AA72
Procedural Changes to the Fire
Management Assistance Declaration
Process
Federal Emergency
Management Agency, DHS.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
By this final rule, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) is updating its Fire
Management Assistance Grant Program
regulations to reflect a change in the
internal delegation of authority for fire
management assistance declarations,
and resulting internal procedural
changes that are impacted by the change
in authority. FEMA is also making
nomenclature changes to update names
and titles to reflect recent changes to
FEMA’s organizational structure.
DATES: This final rule is effective August
17, 2010.
ADDRESSES: A copy of this rule is
available electronically on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. (In the Keyword
Search or ID box, type FEMA–2010–
0036.)
The rule is also available for
inspection at the Office of Chief
Counsel, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street, SW.,
Room 835, Washington, DC 20472–
3100.
jdjones on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:55 Aug 16, 2010
Jkt 220001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
James A. Walke, Director, Public
Assistance Division, Recovery
Directorate, DHS/FEMA, 500 C Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20472–3300.
Phone: 202–646–2751. E-mail:
James.Walke@dhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Fire Management Assistance
Grant (FMAG) Program assists State,
local, and Tribal governments with the
mitigation, management, and control of
fires on publicly or privately owned
forests or grasslands, which threaten
such destruction as would constitute a
major disaster. The FMAG declaration
process may be initiated when a fire is
burning uncontrolled and threatens
such destruction as would constitute a
major disaster. The FMAG declaration
process is initiated by a State submitting
a request for assistance to the Regional
Administrator. The request addresses
the threat to lives and improved
property, the availability of State and
local firefighting resources, high fire
danger conditions, and the potential for
major economic impact. Those criteria
are supported with documentation that
contains factual data and professional
estimates. The Regional Administrator
then coordinates with the Principal
Advisor and forwards the request to the
Assistant Administrator for the Disaster
Assistance Directorate. The Assistant
Administrator for the Disaster
Assistance Directorate then makes a
determination whether the fire or fire
complex threatens such destruction as
would constitute a major disaster. The
entire process is accomplished on an
expedited basis.
II. Discussion of the Rule
In December 2009, FEMA underwent
a reorganization to streamline and
improve FEMA’s programs and,
consistent with the reorganization, is
now revising the delegation of authority
under the FMAG program regarding
determinations that a fire or fire
complex threatens such destruction as
would constitute a major disaster. This
final rule therefore updates title 44, part
204 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR) to reflect those organizational and
procedural changes. This final rule does
not change the substantive eligibility
requirements, contained in FEMA’s
existing regulations.
On March 3, 2004, the Secretary for
Homeland Security delegated the
authority to make FMAG determinations
to the Administrator (then called the
Under Secretary for Emergency
Preparedness and Response) in
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
50713
Homeland Security Delegation Number
9001. This delegation to the
Administrator explicitly authorizes
redelegation of this authority. This
procedural rule removes the
redelegation of authority to the
Assistant Administrator for the Disaster
Assistance Directorate (now the
Assistant Administrator for Recovery
per the 2009 internal reorganization)
and reverts the authority to issue FMAG
declarations and decide appeals back to
the Administrator.
Although the Administrator is
rescinding his redelegation of this
authority to the Assistant Administrator
for the Disaster Assistance Directorate,
at any time the Administrator may
redelegate this authority at his
discretion, in writing. Such delegations
are not required to be made through
regulation, or published in the Federal
Register. Pursuant to the Federal
Register Act (44 U.S.C. 1505), the only
documents that are required to be
published in the Federal Register are
Presidential proclamations, Executive
Orders, and those documents that either
the President has determined to have
general applicability and legal effect or
are required to be published in the
Federal Register by Act of Congress.
The delegation of the FEMA
Administrator’s authority to make
determinations regarding the FMAG
program does not trigger those criteria.
States that seek a declaration under
the FMAG program will continue to
submit their requests for declarations to
FEMA through the Regional
Administrator. The Regional
Administrator will forward the request
to the Administrator for a determination
on the declaration. This change in
redelegation will affect the procedural
requirements associated with applying
for fire management assistance
declarations by changing who reviews
requests for FMAG declarations. This
rule only changes the internal
processing procedures that occur after a
State submits a request. The application
requirements remain the same, as do the
requirements for eligibility.
III. Regulatory Information
A. Administrative Procedure Act
FEMA did not publish a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this
regulation. FEMA finds that this rule is
exempt from the Administrative
Procedure Act’s (5 U.S.C. 553(b)) notice
and comment rulemaking requirements
because it is purely procedural in
nature. See 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(A). This
rule updates FEMA’s regulations to
reflect a change in the internal
delegation of authority for fire
E:\FR\FM\17AUR1.SGM
17AUR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 158 (Tuesday, August 17, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 50711-50713]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-19827]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0003; FRL-9187-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Ohio; Final Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
Carbon Monoxide and Volatile Organic Compounds
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Under section 110(k)(3) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), EPA is
disapproving an Ohio regulation revision pertaining to volatile organic
compound (VOC) limits for high performance architectural coatings
contained in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-21-09(U)(1)(h). Under
section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, we are also conditionally approving a
revision of paragraph (BBB)(1) of OAC 3745-21-09, based on a State
commitment to provide for enforceability of a pertinent limit no later
than one year from the date of EPA's conditional approval.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 16, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2005-OH-0003. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Anthony Maietta,
Environmental Protection Specialist, at (312) 353-8777 before visiting
the Region 5 office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anthony Maietta, Environmental
Protection Specialist, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch
(AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8777,
maietta.anthony@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. What Were EPA's Proposed Actions?
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. What Actions is EPA Taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Were EPA's Proposed Actions?
On January 22, 2010 (75 FR 3668), EPA proposed a variety of actions
regarding revisions to OAC 3745-21, from submittals dated October 9,
2000, February 6, 2001, August 3, 2001, and June 24, 2003. We proposed
to (1) approve into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) certain
revisions in OAC 3745-21 which have been adopted by the State; (2)
disapprove a revision pertaining to high performance architectural
coatings; (3) conditionally approve a revision of paragraph (BBB)(1) of
OAC 3745-21-09, if the State gives EPA a letter that commits to provide
for enforceability of the 1 ton per year limit no later than one year
from the expected date of EPA's conditional approval; (4) take no
action on certain regulation revisions, and, (5) provide notice that
EPA and Ohio have created a mechanism to incorporate into the Ohio SIP
permits to facilities operating under previously issued alternate VOC
limit and emission control exemptions for miscellaneous metal coating
operations under OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f). For administrative
convenience, in a separate rulemaking published June 21, 2010, at 75 FR
34939, we approved certain submitted regulation revisions, took no
action on others, and recognized various emission control exemptions
that have been granted for miscellaneous metal coating operations under
OAC 3745-21-09(U)(2)(f). Today's action makes final our disapproval and
conditional approval of portions of OAC rule 3745-21-09. You can learn
more information about the rule revisions submitted and our evaluation
of them in our proposed action.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We
did not receive any comments on the proposed action. On March 1, and
July 2, 2010, Ohio EPA committed to remedy deficiencies in OAC 3745-21-
09(BBB)(1).
III. What Actions is EPA Taking?
EPA is disapproving the coating VOC content limit for high
performance architectural aluminum coatings contained in paragraph
(U)(1)(h) of OAC 3745-21-09 because the State has not demonstrated that
the relaxation of the VOC content limit for high performance
architectural aluminum coatings would not interfere with attainment of
the ozone standard and other requirements. EPA is conditionally
approving a revision to OAC 3745-21-09(BBB)(1) provided that the State
is able to, within one year of our final rulemaking, further revise the
paragraph to include test procedures and recordkeeping requirements
compatible with the paragraph's revised emission limit. On March 1, and
July 2, 2010, Ohio EPA committed to remedy the deficiencies in this
revision. If the State fails to correct this rule and confirm this
correction within the allowed one year period, this conditional
approval will revert to disapproval.
[[Page 50712]]
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
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.
Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use
Because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866 or a ``significant energy action,'' 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).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.).
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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).
Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal
Governments
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 (59
FR 22951, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 13132: Federalism
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 a state rule implementing a
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air
Act (CAA).
Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health
and Safety Risks
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 approves a state rule implementing a
Federal Standard.
National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
In reviewing state submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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 state submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a state
submission, to use VCS in place of a state submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Congressional Review Act
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.
section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by October 18, 2010. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: August 3, 2010.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart KK--Ohio
0
2. Section 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraph (kk) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1885 Control strategy: Ozone.
* * * * *
(kk) Disapproval. EPA is disapproving the coating VOC content limit
for high performance architectural aluminum coatings contained in
paragraph (U)(1)(h) of chapter 3745-21-09 of the Ohio Administrative
Code.
0
3. Section 52.1919 is amended by adding paragraph (b) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1919 Identification of plan--conditional approval.
* * * * *
(b) On October 9, 2000, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
submitted a revision to Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) 3745-21-09(BBB).
The revision removed a requirement that for the agerite resin D
process, the VOC emissions from the vapor recovery system vents and
neutralization and distillation system vents (except wash kettle or
still feed condenser vents, stills vacuum jet tailpipe vents, and
process emergency safety relief devices) be vented to an emissions
control device that is designed and operated to achieve an
[[Page 50713]]
emissions control efficiency of at least 90 percent, by weight. In
place of this deleted emissions control efficiency requirement, the
revised paragraph now specifies a total annual VOC emissions limit of
1.0 ton from the recovery system and neutralization and distillation
system vents. The revision lacked test procedures and record keeping
requirements compatible with the revised emission limit. On March 1,
2010, Ohio submitted a commitment to revise OAC 3745-21-09(BBB) to
include the necessary test procedures and record keeping requirements
by September 16, 2011. When EPA determines the state has met its
commitment, OAC 3745-21-09(BBB) will be incorporated by reference into
the SIP.
[FR Doc. 2010-19827 Filed 8-16-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P