Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 8516-8518 [05-3183]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
8516
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman
and the Regional Small Business
Regulatory Fairness Boards. The
Ombudsman evaluates these actions
annually and rates each agency?s
responsiveness to small business. If you
wish to comment on actions by
employees of the Coast Guard, call 1–
888-REG-FAIR (1–888–734–3247).
Collection of Information
This rule calls for no new collection
of information under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520).
Federalism
A rule has implications for federalism
under Executive Order 13132,
Federalism, if it has a substantial direct
effect on State or local governments and
would either preempt State law or
impose a substantial direct cost of
compliance on them. We have analyzed
this rule under that Order and have
determined that it does not have
implications for federalism.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires
Federal agencies to assess the effects of
their discretionary regulatory actions. In
particular, the Act addresses actions
that may result in the expenditure by a
State, local, or tribal government, in the
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 the
preamble.
Taking of Private Property
This rule will not affect 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
an economically significant rule and
does not cause an environmental risk to
health or risk to safety that may
disproportionately affect children.
VerDate jul<14>2003
12:43 Feb 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
Indian Tribal Governments
This rule does not have tribal
implications under Executive Order
13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments,
because it does 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.
Instruction, from further environmental
documentation. This final rule involves
removal of the drawbridge operation
regulation for a drawbridge that has
been removed from service and placing
a drawbridge operation regulation on a
new high-level bascule drawbridge. It
will not have any impact on the
environment.
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.
Regulations
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
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.
§ 117.451
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 (32)(e), of the
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Great Basin
Unified Air Pollution Control District
and Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
For the reasons set out in the preamble,
the Coast Guard is amending part 117 of
title 33, Code of Federal Regulations as
follows:
I
PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE
OPERATION REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 117
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of
Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33
CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued
under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. In § 117.451, paragraph (d) is revised
to read as follows:
I
Gulf Intracoastal Waterway.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) The draw of the SR 319 (Louisa)
bridge across the Gulf Intracoastal
Waterway, mile 134.0 west of Harvey
Lock, near Cypremort, shall open on
signal if at least 24 hours notice is given.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: February 10, 2005.
R.F. Duncan,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,
Eighth Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 05–3381 Filed 2–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 309–0474; FRL–7872–4]
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of
revisions to the Great Basin Unified Air
Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD)
and Ventura County Air Pollution
E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM
22FER1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Control District (VCAPCD) portions of
the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions were
proposed in the Federal Register on
June 7, 2004 and concern the emission
of particulate matter (PM–10) from open
burning and incinerator burning. We are
approving local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).
Effective Date: This rule is
effective on March 24, 2005.
DATES:
You can inspect copies of
the submitted rule revisions and EPA’s
technical support documents (TSDs) at
our Region IX office during normal
ADDRESSES:
business hours. You may also see copies
of the submitted rule revisions and
TSDs at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington
DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary
Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section,
1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control
District, 157 Short Street, Suite 6, Bishop,
CA 93514.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District, 669 Country Square Drive,
Ventura, CA 93003.
A copy of the rule may also be
available via the Internet at https://
www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm.
8517
Please be advised that this is not an EPA
website and may not contain the same
version of the rule that was submitted
to EPA.
Al
Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, (415) 947–4118,
petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. Proposed Action
On June 7, 2004 (69 FR 31782), EPA
proposed to approve the following rules
into the California SIP.
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
GBUAPCD ..........................
GBUAPCD ..........................
VCAPCD .............................
Rule #
Rule Title
406
407
56
Revised or amended
Open Outdoor Fires .......................................................
Incinerator and Burn Barrel-Burning ..............................
Open Burning .................................................................
09/24/03, Revised ..............
09/24/03, Revised ..............
011/11/03, Amended .........
We proposed to approve these rules
because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA
requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules
and our evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received a comment from the
following party.
• Randy Gullickson, Camarillo,
California, e-mail dated June 7, 2004
and received June 7, 2004.
As a result of this comment, we
published a withdrawal of the direct
final approval of these rules that was
published on July 15, 2004 (69 FR
42340). The comment and our response
is summarized below.
Comment: Mr. Gullickson, a resident
and homeowner in Ventura County, is
concerned about the proposed
exemption ‘‘to limit the burning of
household waste at single-or two-family
dwellings to only dry non-glossy paper
and cardboard and dry natural
vegetation.’’ His concern relates to the
costs and problems, such as damage to
local farms and fields, that are
associated with implementation of this
limited exemption. He urges EPA to
reconsider the approval after a thorough
study of these issues.
Response: The cited limited
exemption is contained in GBUAPCD
Rule 407, Incinerator and Burn Barrel
Burning, pursuant to California Code of
Regulations, title 17, section 93113(e).
VerDate jul<14>2003
12:43 Feb 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
The exemption is restricted to areas
with population density of less or equal
to 3.0 persons per square mile. The
District may request that the exemption
also apply to areas with greater than 3.0
but less or equal to 10.0 persons per
square mile for a renewable 10-year
period. The low population density
assures that very little burning would
occur and then only materials that burn
relatively clean would be burned.
Further restrictions are that burning
must occur only on Burn Days as
determined by the California Air
Resources Board and that a valid burn
permit be obtained from the GBUAPCD.
We believe that incinerator burning
under the cited requirements
significantly limits any incinerator
burning and that negligible
contamination from PM–10 emissions
will occur in the remote, lowpopulation density areas where the
exemption is allowed.
VCAPCD Rule 56, Open Burning,
which regulates open burning in
Ventura County, does not include this
limited exemption and does not allow
burning of any household waste at
single-or two-family dwellings. Thus,
the potential environmental problems
and environmental costs associated with
this limited exemption would not occur
in Ventura County.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the
relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Submitted
11/04/03
11/04/03
01/15/04
Act, EPA is fully approving these rules
into the California SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
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. For
this reason, 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). 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.). 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).
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
E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM
22FER1
8518
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 34 / Tuesday, February 22, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Government and Indian tribes,
as specified by Executive Order 13175
(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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. 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 is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s
role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the Clean Air Act. 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 SIP submission for
failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for
EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place of a SIP submission
that otherwise satisfies the provisions of
the Clean Air Act. 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. 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. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
VerDate jul<14>2003
12:43 Feb 18, 2005
Jkt 205001
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 25, 2005.
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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 12, 2005.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraphs (c)(321)(i)(C)(2) and
(3) and (328)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:
I
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(321) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 406, adopted on January 21,
1976 and revised on September 24,
2003.
(3) Rule 407, adopted on September 5,
1974 and revised on September 24,
2003.
*
*
*
*
*
(328) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Rule 56, adopted on October 22,
1968 and amended on November 11,
2003.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 05–3183 Filed 2–18–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 207–0435a; FRL–7871–1]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley
Air Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the
Antelope Valley Air Quality
Management District (AVAQMD)
portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern the permitting of air
pollution sources. We are approving
local rules under authority of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on April 25,
2005 without further notice, unless EPA
receives adverse comments by March
24, 2005. If we receive such comment,
we will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register to notify the public
that this rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Send comments to Gerardo
Rios, Permits Office Chief (AIR–3), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105, or e-mail to
R9airpermits@epa.gov, or submit
comments at https://
www.regulations.gov.
You can inspect copies of the
submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s
technical support document (TSD) at
our Region IX office during normal
business hours. You may also see copies
of the submitted SIP revisions and TSD
at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air
Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW.,
Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board,
Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
Antelope Valley Air Quality
Management District, 43301 Division
Street, #206, Lancaster, CA 93535.
A copy of the rule may also be available
via the Internet at https://
www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm.
Please be advised that this is not an
EPA Web site and may not contain the
same version of the rule that was
submitted to EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Manny Aquitania, Permits Office (AIR–
3), U.S. Environmental Protection
E:\FR\FM\22FER1.SGM
22FER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 22, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8516-8518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-3183]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 309-0474; FRL-7872-4]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Great
Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District and Ventura County Air
Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Great Basin
Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) and Ventura County Air
Pollution
[[Page 8517]]
Control District (VCAPCD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal
Register on June 7, 2004 and concern the emission of particulate matter
(PM-10) from open burning and incinerator burning. We are approving
local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on March 24, 2005.
ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and
EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule
revisions and TSDs at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District, 157 Short
Street, Suite 6, Bishop, CA 93514.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 Country Square
Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http:/
/www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not
an EPA website and may not contain the same version of the rule that
was submitted to EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4118,
petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Proposed Action
On June 7, 2004 (69 FR 31782), EPA proposed to approve the
following rules into the California SIP.
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Rule Title Revised or amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GBUAPCD............................ 406 Open Outdoor Fires........ 09/24/03, Revised.... 11/04/03
GBUAPCD............................ 407 Incinerator and Burn 09/24/03, Revised.... 11/04/03
Barrel-Burning.
VCAPCD............................. 56 Open Burning.............. 011/11/03, Amended... 01/15/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received a comment from the following party.
Randy Gullickson, Camarillo, California, e-mail dated June
7, 2004 and received June 7, 2004.
As a result of this comment, we published a withdrawal of the
direct final approval of these rules that was published on July 15,
2004 (69 FR 42340). The comment and our response is summarized below.
Comment: Mr. Gullickson, a resident and homeowner in Ventura
County, is concerned about the proposed exemption ``to limit the
burning of household waste at single-or two-family dwellings to only
dry non-glossy paper and cardboard and dry natural vegetation.'' His
concern relates to the costs and problems, such as damage to local
farms and fields, that are associated with implementation of this
limited exemption. He urges EPA to reconsider the approval after a
thorough study of these issues.
Response: The cited limited exemption is contained in GBUAPCD Rule
407, Incinerator and Burn Barrel Burning, pursuant to California Code
of Regulations, title 17, section 93113(e). The exemption is restricted
to areas with population density of less or equal to 3.0 persons per
square mile. The District may request that the exemption also apply to
areas with greater than 3.0 but less or equal to 10.0 persons per
square mile for a renewable 10-year period. The low population density
assures that very little burning would occur and then only materials
that burn relatively clean would be burned. Further restrictions are
that burning must occur only on Burn Days as determined by the
California Air Resources Board and that a valid burn permit be obtained
from the GBUAPCD. We believe that incinerator burning under the cited
requirements significantly limits any incinerator burning and that
negligible contamination from PM-10 emissions will occur in the remote,
low-population density areas where the exemption is allowed.
VCAPCD Rule 56, Open Burning, which regulates open burning in
Ventura County, does not include this limited exemption and does not
allow burning of any household waste at single-or two-family dwellings.
Thus, the potential environmental problems and environmental costs
associated with this limited exemption would not occur in Ventura
County.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rules comply with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
these rules into the California SIP.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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. For this
reason, 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). 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.). 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).
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
[[Page 8518]]
Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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. 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 is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 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 SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. 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. 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.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 25, 2005. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: January 12, 2005.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(321)(i)(C)(2) and
(3) and (328)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(321) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 406, adopted on January 21, 1976 and revised on September
24, 2003.
(3) Rule 407, adopted on September 5, 1974 and revised on September
24, 2003.
* * * * *
(328) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Rule 56, adopted on October 22, 1968 and amended on November
11, 2003.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-3183 Filed 2-18-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
