Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Michigan; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule, 7657-7658 [05-2895]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
aggregate, or by the private sector of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year.
Though this rule will not result in such
an expenditure, we do discuss the
effects of this rule elsewhere in this
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not effect a taking of
private property or otherwise have
taking implications under Executive
Order 12630, Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights.
Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets applicable standards
in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to
minimize litigation, eliminate
ambiguity, and reduce burden.
Protection of Children
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13045, Protection of
Children from Environmental Health
Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not
economically significant and does not
cause an environmental risk to health or
risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it would not have a substantial
direct affect 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.
Energy Effects
We have analyzed this rule under
Executive Order 13211, Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use. We have
determined that it is not a ‘‘significant
energy action’’ under that order because
it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’
under Executive Order 12866 and is not
likely to have a significant adverse effect
on the supply, distribution, or use of
energy. The Administrator of the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs
has not designated it as a significant
energy action. Therefore, it does not
require a Statement of Energy Effects
under Executive Order 13211.
Technical Standards
The National Technology Transfer
and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15
U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use
voluntary consensus standards in their
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:53 Feb 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
regulatory activities unless the agency
provides Congress, through the Office of
Management and Budget, with an
explanation of why using these
standards would be inconsistent with
applicable law or otherwise impractical.
Voluntary consensus standards are
technical standards (e.g., specifications
of materials, performance, design, or
operation; test methods; sampling
procedures; and related management
systems practices) that are developed or
adopted by voluntary consensus
standards bodies.
This rule does not use technical
standards. Therefore, we did not
consider the use of voluntary consensus
standards.
Environment
We have analyzed this rule under
Commandant Instruction M16475.lD,
which guides the Coast Guard in
complying with the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and
have concluded that there are no factors
in this case that would limit the use of
a categorical exclusion under section
2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this
rule is categorically excluded, under
figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of the
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation because it is a safety
zone.
Under figure 2–1, paragraph (34)(g), of
the Instruction, an ‘‘Environmental
Analysis Check List’’ and a ‘‘Categorical
Exclusion Determination’’ are not
required for this rule.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation
(water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Security measures,
Waterways.
I For the reasons set out in the preamble,
the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165
as follows:
PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION
AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS
1. The authority citation for Part 165
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C.
Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR
1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L.
107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
2. From February 12, 2005 to March 31,
2005, add temporary § 165.T17–011 to
read as follows:
I
§ 165.T17–011 Alaska Aerospace
Development Corporation, Sitkinak Island,
Kodiak Island, AK: Safety Zones.
(a) Description. This safety zone
includes an area in the Gulf of Alaska,
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
7657
west of Sitkinak Island, Alaska.
Specifically, the zone includes the
waters of the Gulf of Alaska that are
within the area bounded by a line
drawn from a point located at 56°40.50′
N, 153°42.50′ W, then southeast to a
point located at 56°34.00′ N, 153°29.50′
W, then southwest to a point located at
56°12.50′ N, 154°2.50′ W, and then
northwest to a point located at 56°19.00′
N, 154°16.50′ W, and then northeast to
the point located at 56°40.50′ N,
153°42.50′ W. All coordinates reference
Datum: NAD 1983.
(b) Enforcement periods. The safety
zone in this section will be enforced
from 4 p.m. to 11 p.m. during each day
of a seven-day launch window period
from February 12, 2005 to March 31,
2005.
(c) Regulations. (1) The Captain of the
Port and the Duty Officer at Marine
Safety Office, Anchorage, Alaska can be
contacted at telephone number (907)
271–6700.
(2) The Captain of the Port may
authorize and designate any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant, or petty
officer to act on his behalf in enforcing
the safety zone.
(3) The general regulations governing
safety zones contained in § 165.23
apply. No person or vessel may enter or
remain in this safety zone, with the
exception of attending vessels, without
first obtaining permission from the
Captain of the Port or his on-scene
representative. The Captain of the Port,
Western Alaska, or his on-scene
representative may be contacted at the
Kodiak Launch Complex via VHF
marine channel 16.
Dated: January 21, 2005.
R.J. Morris,
Captain U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port, Western Alaska.
[FR Doc. 05–2868 Filed 2–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R05–OAR–2004–MI–0002; FRL–7873–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Withdrawal of Direct Final
Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse
comments, the EPA is withdrawing the
December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76848), direct
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
7658
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 30 / Tuesday, February 15, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
final rule approving limits that would
limit emissions of Oxides of Nitrogen
(NOX) from large stationary sources (i.e.
power plants, industrial boilers and
cement kilns). The State of Michigan
submitted this revision as a
modification to the State
Implementation Plan on April 3, 2003.
After minor deficiencies in the April 3,
2003 submittal were identified, a
subsequent submittal was made on May
27, 2004 to address these deficiencies.
In the December 23, 2004 direct final
approval, EPA found the changes made
to the State’s rules in the May 27, 2004
submittal approvable. In that direct final
rule, EPA stated that if adverse
comments were submitted by January
24, 2005, the rule would be withdrawn
and not take effect. Comments were
received during the public comment
period. EPA believes these comments
are adverse and, therefore, EPA is
withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA
will address the comments in a
subsequent final action based upon the
proposed action also published on
December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76886). EPA
will not institute a second comment
period on this action.
The direct final rule published at
69 FR 76848 on December 23, 2004 is
withdrawn as of February 15, 2005.
DATES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone:
(312) 353–6960. E-Mail Address:
aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 4, 2005.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
PART 52—[AMENDED]
Accordingly, the amendment to 40
CFR 52.1170 published in the Federal
Register on December 23, 2004 (69 FR
76848) on pages 76848–76854 are
withdrawn as of February 15, 2005.
I
[FR Doc. 05–2895 Filed 2–14–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate jul<14>2003
14:53 Feb 14, 2005
Jkt 205001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 239 and 258
[FRL–7873–1]
Adequacy of Minnesota Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Program
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA),
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 5 is approving a
modification to Minnesota’s approved
municipal solid waste landfill (MSWLF)
permit program. The modification
allows the State to issue research,
development and demonstration (RD&D)
permits to owners and operators of
MSWLF units in accordance with its
state law.
DATES: This final determination is
effective February 15, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Twickler, mailcode DW–8J,
Waste Management Branch, U.S. EPA
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604, telephone (312)
886–6184, twickler.donna@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
On March 22, 2004, EPA issued a
final rule amending the municipal solid
waste landfill criteria in 40 CFR part
258 to allow for research, development
and demonstration (RD&D) permits. (69
FR 13242). This rule allows for
variances from specified criteria for a
limited period of time, to be
implemented through state-issued
RD&D permits. RD&D permits are only
available in states with approved
MSWLF permit programs which have
been modified to incorporate RD&D
permit authority. While States are not
required to seek approval for this new
provision, those States that are
interested in providing RD&D permits to
owners and operators of MSWLFs must
seek approval from EPA before issuing
such permits. Approval procedures for
new provisions of 40 CFR Part 258 are
outlined in 40 CFR 239.12.
Minnesota’s MSWLF permit program
was approved on August 16, 1993 (58
FR 43350). On June 2, 2004, Minnesota
applied for approval of its RD&D permit
provisions. On September 10, 2004, EPA
published both an immediate final rule
(69 FR 54756) approving Minnesota’s
RD&D permit requirements, and a
parallel proposed rule (69 FR 54756)
proposing to approve Minnesota’s RD&D
permit requirements. Both notices
provided a public comment period that
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ended on October 12, 2004. The
immediate final rule would have
become effective on Novermber 9, 2004,
if no adverse comments were received.
However, EPA received one adverse
comment on the immediate final rule.
Therefore, on November 3, 2004, EPA
withdrew the immediate final rule (69
FR 65381, Nov. 12, 2004). Today’s rule
takes final action on the proposed
approval of Minnesota’s program
modification for RD&D permit authority.
After a thorough review, EPA Region 5
has determined that Minnesota’s RD&D
permit provisions as defined under
Minnesota Rule 7035.0450 are adequate
to ensure compliance with the Federal
criteria as defined at 40 CFR 258.4.
B. Response to Comment
The commenter urged EPA not to
approve Minnesota’s or any state’s
application to modify its approved
MSWLF permit program to add RD&D
permit authority, because of a pending
legal challenge to the EPA’s rule
amending 40 CFR part 258 to allow for
RD&D variances (GrassRoots Recycling
Network v. EPA, No. 04–1196 (D.C.
Cir.)). EPA does not agree that the
pending legal challenge prevents
implementation of the RD&D rule. The
existence of a petition for review does
not, by itself, suspend implementation
of the RD&D rule. The commenter also
opposes modification of the state
program in order to preserve state
resources. It is the State’s, not EPA’s,
decision to implement the RD&D rule
during the pendency of the legal
challenge, and Minnesota has decided
to seek approval of its permit program
modification even with the knowledge
of the pending case.
In sum, the comment did not address
either the substance or adequacy of
Minnesota’s RD&D permit requirements,
or the basis of EPA’s proposed decision
to approve those requirements. EPA has
concluded that the comment is not a
basis for disapproving Minnesota’s
permit program modification.
C. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
This action approves state solid waste
requirements pursuant to RCRA Section
4005 and imposes no federal
requirements. Therefore, this rule
complies with applicable executive
orders and statutory provisions as
follows: 1. Executive Order 12866:
Regulatory Planning Review—The
Office of Management and Budget has
exempted this action from its review
under Executive Order (EO) 12866; 2.
Paperwork Reduction Act—This action
does not impose an information
collection burden under the Paperwork
E:\FR\FM\15FER1.SGM
15FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7657-7658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2895]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R05-OAR-2004-MI-0002; FRL-7873-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Michigan; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of adverse comments, the EPA is withdrawing
the December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76848), direct
[[Page 7658]]
final rule approving limits that would limit emissions of Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOX) from large stationary sources (i.e. power
plants, industrial boilers and cement kilns). The State of Michigan
submitted this revision as a modification to the State Implementation
Plan on April 3, 2003. After minor deficiencies in the April 3, 2003
submittal were identified, a subsequent submittal was made on May 27,
2004 to address these deficiencies. In the December 23, 2004 direct
final approval, EPA found the changes made to the State's rules in the
May 27, 2004 submittal approvable. In that direct final rule, EPA
stated that if adverse comments were submitted by January 24, 2005, the
rule would be withdrawn and not take effect. Comments were received
during the public comment period. EPA believes these comments are
adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. EPA
will address the comments in a subsequent final action based upon the
proposed action also published on December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76886). EPA
will not institute a second comment period on this action.
DATES: The direct final rule published at 69 FR 76848 on December 23,
2004 is withdrawn as of February 15, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano, Environmental
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone: (312) 353-6960. E-Mail
Address: aburano.douglas@epa.gov.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: February 4, 2005.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
Accordingly, the amendment to 40 CFR 52.1170 published in the Federal
Register on December 23, 2004 (69 FR 76848) on pages 76848-76854 are
withdrawn as of February 15, 2005.
[FR Doc. 05-2895 Filed 2-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P