Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 34435-34437 [05-11718]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules Executive Order 13211—Regulations That Significantly Affect the Supply, Distribution, or Use of Energy On May 18, 2001, the President issued Executive Order 13211 which requires agencies to prepare a Statement of Energy Effects for a rule that is (1) considered significant under Executive Order 12866, and (2) likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Because this rule is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866 and is not expected to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, a Statement of Energy Effects is not required. National Environmental Policy Act This rule does not require an environmental impact statement because section 702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d)) provides that agency decisions on proposed State regulatory program provisions do not constitute major Federal actions within the meaning of section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)). Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not contain information collection requirements that require approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3507 et seq.). Regulatory Flexibility Act The Department of the Interior 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.). The State submittal, which is the subject of this rule, is based upon counterpart Federal regulations for which an economic analysis was prepared and certification made that such regulations would not have a significant economic effect upon a substantial number of small entities. In making the determination as to whether this rule would have a significant economic impact, the Department relied upon the data and assumptions for the counterpart Federal regulations. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. This rule: (a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million; VerDate jul<14>2003 20:03 Jun 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 (b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions; and (c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. Unfunded Mandates This rule will not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector of $100 million or more in any given year. This determination is based upon the analysis performed under various laws and executive orders for the counterpart Federal regulations. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 948 Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining. Dated: May 23, 2005. James M. Taitt, Acting Regional Director, , Appalachian Regional Coordinating Center. [FR Doc. 05–11706 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4310–05–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 34435 Any comments must arrive by July 14, 2005. DATES: Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR– 4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at https:// www.regulations.gov. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA’s technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following locations: ADDRESSES: California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182. 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: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947–4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. 40 CFR Part 52 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: [CA–307–0482; FRL–7924–3] Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter (PM) emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units at oil refineries. We are proposing to approve SCAQMD Rule 1105.1 to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What Is the purpose of the submitted rule? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How Is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule D. Public comment and final action I. The State’s Submittal A. What Rule Did the State Submit? Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1 34436 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES Local agency SCAQMD ................ Rule No. 1105.1 Rule title Reduction of PM10 and Ammonia Emissions From Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units (FCCU). On June 30, 2004, EPA found this rule submittal met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. These criteria must be met before formal EPA review can begin. B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule? There are no previous versions of Rule 1105.1 in the SIP. C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule? SCAQMD Rule 1105.1 is designed to limit particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) and ammonia emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units at oil refineries. The rule sets emission limits for filterable PM10 and ammonia slip. PM10 and ammonia emissions result from the combination of FCCU emissions and ammonia injection used with electrostatic precipitators (ESP) to control FCCU emissions. Once in the atomosphere, ammonia emissions react with other compounds to produce secondary aerosol PM10. Oil refineries are expected to implement several control technologies to meet the emissions limits, including but not limited to, dry and wet ESPs, sulfur oxide reducing agents, selective catalytic reduction, selective non-catalytic reduction, and wet gas scrubbers. The TSD has more information about these rules. II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? Generally, PM10 SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must meet Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) requirements for nonattainment areas (see section 189), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates a serious PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 1105.1 must fulfill RACM and Best Available Control Measure (BACM) requirements. Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability and RACM requirements consistently include the following documents. 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. VerDate jul<14>2003 20:03 Jun 13, 2005 Adopted Jkt 205001 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24,1987 Federal Register Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 Federal Register. B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria? We believe the rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, and SIP relaxations. Section 189 of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) required that serious PM nonattainment areas, such as SCAQMD, implement in a stepwise manner all RACM and BACM rules for all major sources and significant PM–10 source categories. The SCAQMD’s plan for attaining the PM–10 NAAQS is the regulatory vehicle for determining RACM and BACM rules. For Rule 1105.1, the SCAQMD PM–10 plan defines the FCCU source category as ‘‘de minimis’’ or producing emissions less than or equal to 5% of the PM standard. Consequently, Rule 1105.1 is not designated as either a RACM, or BACM rule in the SCAQMD PM–10 plan. Consequently, our review is limited to enforceability and SIP relaxation criteria. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule We have no additional recommendations regarding Rule 1105.1 D. Public Comment and Final Action Because EPA believes Rule 1105.1 fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate Rule 1105.1 into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 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 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 11/07/03 Submitted 06/03/04 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 proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 (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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 113 / Tuesday, June 14, 2005 / Proposed Rules 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 proposed 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.). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: April, 20, 2005. Wayne Nastri, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 05–11718 Filed 6–13–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–U ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 372 [TRI–2005–0004; FRL–7532–4] RIN 2025–AA17 Addition of Diisononyl Phthalate Category; Community Right-to-Know Toxic Chemical Release Reporting; Notice of Data Availability Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule, notice of data availability. AGENCY: SUMMARY: On September 5, 2000, EPA issued a proposed rule, in response to a petition filed under section 313(e)(1) of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), to add a diisononyl phthalate (DINP) category to the list of toxic chemicals subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 and section 6607 of the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). EPA proposed to add this chemical category to the EPCRA section 313 toxic chemical list pursuant to its authority to add chemicals and chemical categories because EPA believes this category meets the EPCRA section 313(d)(2)(B) toxicity criterion. The purpose of VerDate jul<14>2003 20:03 Jun 13, 2005 Jkt 205001 today’s action is to inform interested parties that, in an effort to ensure adequate opportunities for input from all affected parties, EPA is making available for public comment a revised hazard assessment for DINP. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 12, 2005. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. TRI–2005– 0004, by one of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: https:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • Agency Web site: https:// www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA’s preferred method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. • E-mail: oei.docket@epa.gov. • Mail: Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20460, Attention Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0004. • Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, 20004, telephone: 202–566–1744, Attention Docket ID No. TRI–2005– 0004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. TRI–2005–0004. EPA’s policy is that all comments received will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at https://www.epa.gov/ edocket, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal regulations.gov Web sites are ‘‘anonymous access’’ systems, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through EDOCKET or regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 34437 comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index at: https://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in EDOCKET or in hard copy at the OEI Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is 202–566–1744, and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is 202–566– 1752. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel R. Bushman, Toxics Release Inventory Program Division, Office of Information Analysis and Access (2844T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202–566–0743; fax number: 202–566–0741; e-mail: bushman.daniel@epamail.epa.gov, for specific information on this proposed rule, or for more information on EPCRA section 313, the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Hotline, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 5101, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460, Toll free: 1–800–424–9346, in Virginia and Alaska: 703–412–9810 or Toll free TDD: 1–800–553–7672. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. Does This Notice Apply To Me? You may be potentially affected by this notice if you manufacture, process, or otherwise use DINP. Potentially affected categories and entities may include, but are not limited to: E:\FR\FM\14JNP1.SGM 14JNP1

Agencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 113 (Tuesday, June 14, 2005)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34435-34437]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-11718]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-307-0482; FRL-7924-3]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns particulate matter 
(PM) emissions from fluid catalytic cracking units at oil refineries. 
We are proposing to approve SCAQMD Rule 1105.1 to regulate these 
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 
Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a 
final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 14, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 or e-mail to 
steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or submit comments at https://
www.regulations.gov.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions, EPA's 
technical support documents (TSDs), and public comments at our Region 
IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You may also see 
copies of the submitted SIP revisions by appointment at the following 
locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley Drive, 
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.

    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 Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule that 
was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 
either (415) 947-4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What Is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule
    D. Public comment and final action

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

[[Page 34436]]



                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Local agency            Rule No.                   Rule title                    Adopted    Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.........................      1105.1  Reduction of PM10 and Ammonia Emissions       11/07/03     06/03/04
                                              From Fluid Catalytic Cracking Units
                                              (FCCU).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 30, 2004, EPA found this rule submittal met the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V. These criteria must 
be met before formal EPA review can begin.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 1105.1 in the SIP.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    SCAQMD Rule 1105.1 is designed to limit particulate matter less 
than 10 microns (PM10) and ammonia emissions from fluid catalytic 
cracking units at oil refineries. The rule sets emission limits for 
filterable PM10 and ammonia slip. PM10 and ammonia emissions result 
from the combination of FCCU emissions and ammonia injection used with 
electrostatic precipitators (ESP) to control FCCU emissions. Once in 
the atomosphere, ammonia emissions react with other compounds to 
produce secondary aerosol PM10. Oil refineries are expected to 
implement several control technologies to meet the emissions limits, 
including but not limited to, dry and wet ESPs, sulfur oxide reducing 
agents, selective catalytic reduction, selective non-catalytic 
reduction, and wet gas scrubbers.
    The TSD has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    Generally, PM10 SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) 
of the Act), must meet Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) 
requirements for nonattainment areas (see section 189), and must not 
relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD 
regulates a serious PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 
1105.1 must fulfill RACM and Best Available Control Measure (BACM) 
requirements.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate 
enforceability and RACM requirements consistently include the following 
documents.
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24,1987 Federal 
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the 
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe the rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, and SIP relaxations. Section 189 of 
the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAA) required that serious PM 
nonattainment areas, such as SCAQMD, implement in a stepwise manner all 
RACM and BACM rules for all major sources and significant PM-10 source 
categories. The SCAQMD's plan for attaining the PM-10 NAAQS is the 
regulatory vehicle for determining RACM and BACM rules. For Rule 
1105.1, the SCAQMD PM-10 plan defines the FCCU source category as ``de 
minimis'' or producing emissions less than or equal to 5% of the PM 
standard. Consequently, Rule 1105.1 is not designated as either a RACM, 
or BACM rule in the SCAQMD PM-10 plan. Consequently, our review is 
limited to enforceability and SIP relaxation criteria. The TSD has more 
information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    We have no additional recommendations regarding Rule 1105.1

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes Rule 1105.1 fulfills all relevant 
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public 
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new 
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final 
approval action that will incorporate Rule 1105.1 into the federally 
enforceable SIP.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed 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 
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that 
this proposed 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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 (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 proposes to approve 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 
proposed 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

[[Page 34437]]

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 
proposed 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.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: April, 20, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 05-11718 Filed 6-13-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.