Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, 41963-41967 [05-14388]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Dated: April 25, 2005.
Steven D. Vaughn,
Director, Office of New Animal Drug
Evaluation.
[FR Doc. 05–14329 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160–01–S
subject of FR Doc. 05–13891, is
corrected as follows:
On page 40660, in the second column,
immediately following the name and
title of the document’s signer, in the
words of issuance, the word ‘‘amended’’
is corrected read ‘‘revised.’’
Dated: July 15, 2005.
James E. Cason,
Associate Deputy Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 05–14437 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
25 CFR Part 124
BILLING CODE 4310–2W–P
RIN 1076–AE74
Deposit of Proceeds From Lands
Withdrawn for Native Selection;
Correction
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
Bureau of Indian Affairs,
Interior.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
40 CFR Part 52
This document contains a
correction to a final rule that was
published Thursday, July 14, 2005 (70
FR 40660). The regulation relates to
Deposit of Proceeds from Lands
Withdrawn for Native Selection.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 14, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Assistant Director, Office of Trust
Regulations, Policies and Procedures, by
telephone at (505) 816–1086, or by
facsimile transmission at (505) 816–
1377.
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plan; Idaho;
Correction
AGENCY:
[Docket # ID–03–003; FRL–7941–7]
SUMMARY:
This rule
is published by the authority of the
Secretary, granted under 43 U.S.C. 1601
et seq. and 25 U.S.C. 4001 et seq., and
delegated to the Assistant Secretary—
Indian Affairs 209 DM 8.1.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final rule provides contact
information to be used by all
Departments and Agencies, the State of
Alaska, and any other interested parties
for deposit of proceeds from lands
withdrawn for native selection. This
rule was published by the Assistant
Secretary—Indian Affairs in
consultation with the Special Trustee
for American Indians under the
provisions of the American Indian Trust
Fund Management Reform Act of 1994.
Need for Correction
As published, the final rule was
introduced by words of issuance that do
not satisfy Office of the Federal Register
standards. The language must be
corrected to allow for correct
codification of the revised regulation.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication on July
14, 2005, of the final rule that was the
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:10 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects the
preamble to a final rule published in the
Federal Register of July 11, 2005 (70 FR
39658) regarding revisions to the open
burning regulations in Idaho’s State
Implementation Plan. This notice
clarifies that, under section 307(b)(1) of
the Clean Air Act, any petition for
judicial review of this action must be
filed in the United States Court of
Appeals for the appropriate circuit
within 60 days from the date notice of
approval appeared in the Federal
Register, and not 30 days, as
erroneously stated in July 11, 2005
action.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Deneen, (206) 553–6706.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Correction
In the final rule, beginning on page
39658 in the issue of July 11, 2005,
make the following correction, in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. On
page 39661 in the 3rd column, remove
‘‘August 10, 2005’’ in the first paragraph
and replace it with ’’September 9,
2005’’.
Dated: July 14, 2005.
Michelle Pirzadeh,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 05–14399 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–M
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41963
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06–OAR–2005–NM–0001; FRL–7942–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New
Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This action finalizes our
approval of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the
Governor of New Mexico on September
7, 2004. The submittal revises the
second ten-year carbon monoxide (CO)
maintenance plan for the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County, New Mexico area.
The submittal also revises the relevant
parts of the New Mexico Administrative
Code (NMAC) including revisions to the
General Provisions, Inspection and
Maintenance (I&M) Program, and the
contingency measures. We are finalizing
approval of these revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the
Federal Clean Air Act (the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on August
22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Regional
Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID
No. R06–OAR–2005–NM–0001. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the RME index at https://docket.epa.gov/
rmepub/, once in the system, select
‘‘quick search,’’ then key in the
appropriate RME Docket identification
number. 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 RME or
in hard copy at the Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. The file will
be made available by appointment for
public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA
Review Room between the hours of 8:30
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for
legal holidays. Contact the person listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT paragraph below to make an
appointment. If possible, please make
the appointment at least two working
days in advance of your visit. There will
be a 15 cent per page fee for making
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
41964
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
photocopies of documents. On the day
of the visit, please check in at the EPA
Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross
Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas.
The State submittal is also available
for public inspection at the State Air
Agency listed below during official
business hours by appointment:
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, Air Planning Section (6PD–L),
1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–
2733.
The City of Albuquerque,
Environmental Health Department, One
Civic Plaza, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Alan Shar of the Air Planning Section
(6PD–L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733 at
(214) 665–6691, shar.alan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
1. What actions are we taking in this
document?
2. Who submitted comments to us?
3. What is our response to the submitted
written comments?
4. What areas in New Mexico will these
rule revisions affect?
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’
refer to EPA.
I. Background Information
1. What Actions Are We Taking in This
Document?
On April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19723) we
proposed approval of revisions to the
New Mexico SIP pertaining to the
second ten-year CO maintenance plan
for the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County,
New Mexico area and its relevant parts
of the NMAC including revisions to the
General Provisions, I&M Program, the
Oxygenated Fuels Program, and the
contingency measures. In the April 14,
2005 Federal Register (70 FR 19723), we
stated that written comment must be
received by May 16, 2005. We received
written adverse comments during the
public comment period.
On June 8, 2005 (70 FR 33363) we
published the withdrawal of the direct
final rule 70 FR 19702 due to the
adverse comments received. A detailed
rationale for our action is set forth in the
direct final rule. See 70 FR 19702, and
the Technical Support Document for
further information. In the June 8, 2005,
Federal Register (70 FR 33363) as well
as the April 14, 2005 direct final rule we
stated that we will summarize and
respond to written comments received,
and take final rulemaking action on the
requested New Mexico SIP revision. In
the June 8, 2005, Federal Register (70
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:10 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
FR 33363), we cited two references as
‘‘71 FR 19723’’ and ‘‘71 FR 19702’’ by
mistake. The correct citations for those
two references should have read ‘‘70 FR
19723’’ and ‘‘70 FR 19702’’ instead.
Today, we are correcting that error.
Today, we are also summarizing and
responding to written comments
received and taking final rulemaking
action on the April 14, 2005 (70 FR
19723) proposal pertaining to the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New
Mexico SIP revision. See sections 2 and
3 of this document for more
information.
2. Who Submitted Comments to Us?
We received written comments on the
April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19723), proposed
New Mexico SIP revision. The
comments were submitted by Chevron
and ConocoPhilips (the Commenters)
during the public comment period.
3. What Is Our Response to the
Submitted Written Comments?
Our responses to the written
comments concerning the April 14,
2005 (70 FR 19723) proposal, New
Mexico SIP revision are as follows:
Comment #1: Chevron and
ConocoPhillips (the Commenters)
expressed their opposition to
maintaining the 2.7 percent oxygenated
fuel content requirement, for the period
from November 1st through the end of
February (Winter season) as a part of the
second ten-year CO limited
maintenance plan, within the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New
Mexico area. Chevron submitted a chart
indicating the downward trend of
calculated CO concentrations in the area
for the recent years to substantiate its
position.
Response to Comment #1: The Act
assigns to the states initial and primary
responsibility for formulating a plan to
achieve the NAAQS. It is up to the state
to prepare state implementation plans
which contain specific pollution control
measures. An examination of this SIP
submittal reveals no record of the
Commenters having provided input or
submitted comments to the State or the
Albuquerque Environmental Health
Department (AEHD) during their
rulemaking process. The EPA’s
responsibilities under the Act are
qualitatively different from those of the
state agency. The EPA is charged with
reviewing and approving or
disapproving the enforceable
implementation plans prepared by
states and other political subdivisions
identified in the statute. It is not EPA’s
role to disapprove the State’s choice of
control strategies if that strategy will
result in attainment or continued
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
maintenance of the NAAQS, and meets
all other applicable statutory
requirements. See Union Electric v.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Train v.
NRDC 421 U.S 60 (1975). The EPA’s role
in reviewing SIP submittals is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Act. Federal
inquiry into the reasonableness of state
action is not allowed under the Act (see,
Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246,
255–266 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
Under section 116 of the Act, with
certain exceptions not relevant here, a
State retains the right to adopt and
enforce any requirement respecting
control or abatement of air pollution,
including more stringent emissions
standards and limitations. The State has
submitted information indicating that
the administrative requirements of New
Mexico law have been met. We can
agree with the Commenters’ statement
that all CO emissions in the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County are not
from mobile sources. However, the CO
emissions inventory Table I of the April
14, 2005 (70 FR 19702) direct final rule
indicates that more than 84% (398.14/
473.34) of the CO emissions in the area
are mobile source related. We can agree
with the Commenters that the overall
trend as shown in the chart, provided by
the Commenters, indicates a downward
trend for the calculated CO
concentrations in the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County area for recent years.
However, we consider this downward
trend to be attributable to the success of
control measures and implementation of
enforceable air quality plans adopted by
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. Thus,
removing the oxygenated fuel content
requirement as requested by the
Commenters (even if EPA had such
authority which, as explained
previously, it does not) could
potentially cause CO concentrations in
the area to increase. We believe that the
measures adopted by the Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County are adequate, and
reflect a coherent way air planning and
transportation have come together to
address air quality issues in the area.
For all of these stated reasons, we
disagree with the Commenters’s
opposition to the existing program.
Comment #2: Chevron states that on
multiple occasions this past season the
railroad was unable to deliver ethanol
tank cars into their terminal when they
were needed. Chevron also stated they
experienced similar problems in their
Phoenix and Las Vegas terminals, as
well. In those instances, Chevron claims
that they had to arrange to purchase and
truck ethanol into their terminals to
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
ensure a continuous and reliable supply
to the customers.
Response to Comment #2: This
comment is not relevant to today’s
rulemaking action. Various forms of the
Oxygenated Fuels Program have been in
place since 1988 in the area, and EPA
approved the Program utilizing ethanol
in 1993. Today’s rulemaking only
approves minor grammatical and
typographical changes to the existing
program; it does not change the
substance of the program EPA approved
in 1993. Chevron’s concern about
ethanol supply to meet the existing
program, therefore, is not relevant to
today’s action.
As noted previously, the State has the
authority to include these measures
under section 116 of the Act in its SIP.
Again, comments concerning ethanol
supply issues should have also been
directed to the State. Therefore, we can
not delete these measures from the SIP,
if the State has adopted or wants to
include them in its SIP.
As far as Chevron’s Albuquerque
terminal operation is concerned, we
believe that the delivery and on-time
availability of ethanol scenarios
described above are largely business
strategy related matters rather than a CO
maintenance issue. Such matters are
best addressed through merchandise
inventory preparations, factoring storage
tank design/capacity estimates, advance
scheduling/planning, and forecasting
considerations.
This concludes our responses to the
written comments we received during
public comment period concerning the
April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19723), New
Mexico proposed SIP revision.
4. What Areas in New Mexico Will
These Rule Revisions Affect?
These rule revisions affect all sources
of air emissions operating within the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New
Mexico area.
II. Final Action
Today, we are finalizing approval of
the CO limited maintenance plan and its
relevant parts of the NMAC including
revisions to the General Provisions
(‘‘Resolutions,’’ ‘‘Definitions,’’ and
‘‘Interpretation’’), I&M Program, the
Oxygenated Fuels Program, and the
contingency measures. We published
the proposal for this approval on April
14, 2005 (70 FR 19723).
III. 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
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:10 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
41965
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 September 19,
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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 14, 2005.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
I
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
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 GG—New Mexico
2. Section 52.1620 is amended as
follows:
I a. In paragraph (c), in the second table
entitled ‘‘EPA Approved Albuquerque/
I
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
41966
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
Bernalillo County, NM Regulations,’’ by
revising the entries for parts 1, 100, and
102.
I b. In paragraph (e), in the second table
entitled ‘‘EPA Approved Nonregulatory
§ 52.1620
Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory
Measures in the New Mexico SIP’’ by
adding one new entry to the end of the
table. The revisions read as follows:
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
*
EPA APPROVED ALBUQUERQUE/BERNALILLO COUNTY, NM REGULATIONS
State citation
State approval/effective date
Title/subject
EPA approval date
Explanation
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, Air Quality Control Regulations
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20—Environment Protection, Chapter 11—Albuquerque/Bernalillo County Air Quality
Control Board
Part 1 (20.11.1 NMAC) ..................................
General Provisions .......................................
09/07/04
*
*
Part 100 (20.11.100 NMAC) ..........................
*
*
*
Motor Vehicle Inspection—Decentralized ....
09/07/04
Part 102 (20.11.102 NMAC) ..........................
Oxygenated Fuels ........................................
09/07/04
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
7/21/05
[Insert FR
page where
document
begins]
*
7/21/05
[Insert FR
page where
document
begins]
7/21/05
[Insert FR
page where
document
begins]
*
*
*
*
(e) * * *
EPA APPROVED NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS AND QUASI-REGULATORY MEASURES IN THE NEW MEXICO SIP
*
*
Second 10-year maintenance plan (limited
maintenance plan) for Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County.
*
VerDate jul<14>2003
*
*
*
Bernalillo County ..........................................
*
17:10 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
State submittal date/
effective
date
Applicable geographic or nonattainment
area
Name of SIP provision
*
PO 00000
Frm 00030
*
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA approval date
*
7/21/05
[Insert FR
page where
document
begins]
*
*
09/07/04
*
*
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
Explanation
21JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 139 / Thursday, July 21, 2005 / Rules and Regulations
3. Section 52.1627 is amended by
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
designating the existing text as paragraph COMMISSION
(a) and by adding paragraph (b) to read
47 CFR Part 1
as follows:
I
§ 52.1627 Control strategy and
regulations: Carbon monoxide.
[MD Docket Nos. 05–59 and 04–73; FCC
05–137]
*
Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2005;
Assessment and Collection of
Regulatory Fees for Fiscal Year 2004
*
*
*
*
(b) Approval—The Albuquerque/
Bernalillo County carbon monoxide
limited maintenance plan revision dated
September 7, 2004, meets the
requirements of section 172 of the Clean
Air Act, and is therefore approved.
[FR Doc. 05–14388 Filed 7–20–05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: In this document, we
conclude a proceeding to collect
$280,098,000 in regulatory fees for
Fiscal Year (FY) 2005. These fees are
mandated by Congress and are collected
to recover the regulatory costs
41967
associated with the Commission’s
enforcement, policy and rulemaking,
user information, and international
activities. We also deny the petition for
reconsideration filed by Cingular
Wireless LLC of the Commission’s FY
2004 Report and Order.
DATES: Effective August 22, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Roland Helvajian, Office of Managing
Director at (202) 418–0444 or Rob
Fream, Office of Managing Director at
(202) 418–0408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Adopted: July 1, 2005.
Released: July 7, 2005.
By the Commission: Commissioner
Copps concurring and issuing a
statement; Commissioner Adelstein
approving in part, concurring in part,
and issuing a statement.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paragraph
No.
Heading
I. Introduction .........................................................................................................................................................................................
II. Discussion .........................................................................................................................................................................................
A. Development of FY 2005 Fees ..................................................................................................................................................
1. Calculation of Revenue and Fee Requirements .................................................................................................................
2. Additional Adjustments to Payment Units ...........................................................................................................................
3. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Messaging Service ........................................................................................
4. Local Multipoint Distribution Service (LMDS) .....................................................................................................................
5. International Bearer Circuits ...............................................................................................................................................
6. Regulatory Fees for Direct Broadcast Service (DBS) Providers and Cable Television Operators ...................................
7. Multichannel Video Distribution and Data Service (MVDDS) .............................................................................................
8. Broadband Radio Service (BRS) / Educational Broadband Service (EBS), (formerly MDS/MMDS and ITFS) ................
9. Regulatory Fees for AM and FM Construction Permits .....................................................................................................
10. Clarification of Policies and Procedures ...........................................................................................................................
a. Ad Hoc Issues Concerning Our Regulatory Fee Exemption Policies .........................................................................
b. Regulatory Fee Obligations for Digital Broadcasters ..................................................................................................
c. Regulatory Fee Obligations for AM Expanded Band Broadcasters ............................................................................
d. Effective Date of Payment of Multi-Year Wireless Fees .............................................................................................
11. Notification, Assessment and Collection of Regulatory Fees ...........................................................................................
a. Interstate Telecommunications Service Providers (ITSPs) .........................................................................................
b. Satellite Space Station Licensees ...............................................................................................................................
c. Media Services Licensees ...........................................................................................................................................
d. Cable Television Subscribers ......................................................................................................................................
B. FY 2005 Fee Determination and FY 2004 Reconsideration .....................................................................................................
12. Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) Providers .....................................................................................................
III. Procedural Matters ...........................................................................................................................................................................
A. Payment of Regulatory Fees .....................................................................................................................................................
1. De Minimis Fee Payment Liability ......................................................................................................................................
2. Standard Fee Calculations and Payment Dates for Annual Regulatory Fees ...................................................................
3. Limitations on Credit Card Transactions ............................................................................................................................
B. Enforcement ...............................................................................................................................................................................
C. Congressional Review Act Analysis ..........................................................................................................................................
IV. Ordering Clauses .............................................................................................................................................................................
Attachments:
Attachment A Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Attachment B Sources of Payment Unit Estimates for FY2005
Attachment C Calculation of Revenue Requirements and Pro-Rata Fees
Attachment D FY 2005 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
Attachment E Factors, Measurements, and Calculations that Determine Station Contours and Population Coverages
Attachment F List of Commenters
Attachment G FY 2004 Schedule of Regulatory Fees
VerDate jul<14>2003
17:10 Jul 20, 2005
Jkt 205001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21JYR1.SGM
21JYR1
1
2
2
2
3
5
6
8
10
12
13
14
16
16
23
24
26
27
29
31
34
36
38
38
45
45
45
46
48
49
51
52
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 139 (Thursday, July 21, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41963-41967]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-14388]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[R06-OAR-2005-NM-0001; FRL-7942-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action finalizes our approval of the State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the Governor of New Mexico on
September 7, 2004. The submittal revises the second ten-year carbon
monoxide (CO) maintenance plan for the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County,
New Mexico area. The submittal also revises the relevant parts of the
New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) including revisions to the
General Provisions, Inspection and Maintenance (I&M) Program, and the
contingency measures. We are finalizing approval of these revisions in
accordance with the requirements of the Federal Clean Air Act (the
Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on August 22, 2005.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Regional Material in EDocket (RME) Docket ID No. R06-OAR-2005-NM-0001.
All documents in the docket are listed in the RME index at https://
docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, once in the system, select ``quick search,''
then key in the appropriate RME Docket identification number. 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 RME or in hard copy at the Air Planning Section (6PD-L),
Environmental Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas 75202-2733. The file will be made available by appointment for
public inspection in the Region 6 FOIA Review Room between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. weekdays except for legal holidays. Contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below to
make an appointment. If possible, please make the appointment at least
two working days in advance of your visit. There will be a 15 cent per
page fee for making
[[Page 41964]]
photocopies of documents. On the day of the visit, please check in at
the EPA Region 6 reception area at 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas,
Texas.
The State submittal is also available for public inspection at the
State Air Agency listed below during official business hours by
appointment:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
The City of Albuquerque, Environmental Health Department, One Civic
Plaza, Albuquerque, NM 87102.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Alan Shar of the Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), EPA Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733 at (214) 665-6691, shar.alan@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background Information
1. What actions are we taking in this document?
2. Who submitted comments to us?
3. What is our response to the submitted written comments?
4. What areas in New Mexico will these rule revisions affect?
II. Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
In this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Background Information
1. What Actions Are We Taking in This Document?
On April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19723) we proposed approval of revisions
to the New Mexico SIP pertaining to the second ten-year CO maintenance
plan for the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico area and its
relevant parts of the NMAC including revisions to the General
Provisions, I&M Program, the Oxygenated Fuels Program, and the
contingency measures. In the April 14, 2005 Federal Register (70 FR
19723), we stated that written comment must be received by May 16,
2005. We received written adverse comments during the public comment
period.
On June 8, 2005 (70 FR 33363) we published the withdrawal of the
direct final rule 70 FR 19702 due to the adverse comments received. A
detailed rationale for our action is set forth in the direct final
rule. See 70 FR 19702, and the Technical Support Document for further
information. In the June 8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 33363) as
well as the April 14, 2005 direct final rule we stated that we will
summarize and respond to written comments received, and take final
rulemaking action on the requested New Mexico SIP revision. In the June
8, 2005, Federal Register (70 FR 33363), we cited two references as
``71 FR 19723'' and ``71 FR 19702'' by mistake. The correct citations
for those two references should have read ``70 FR 19723'' and ``70 FR
19702'' instead. Today, we are correcting that error.
Today, we are also summarizing and responding to written comments
received and taking final rulemaking action on the April 14, 2005 (70
FR 19723) proposal pertaining to the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New
Mexico SIP revision. See sections 2 and 3 of this document for more
information.
2. Who Submitted Comments to Us?
We received written comments on the April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19723),
proposed New Mexico SIP revision. The comments were submitted by
Chevron and ConocoPhilips (the Commenters) during the public comment
period.
3. What Is Our Response to the Submitted Written Comments?
Our responses to the written comments concerning the April 14, 2005
(70 FR 19723) proposal, New Mexico SIP revision are as follows:
Comment #1: Chevron and ConocoPhillips (the Commenters) expressed
their opposition to maintaining the 2.7 percent oxygenated fuel content
requirement, for the period from November 1st through the end of
February (Winter season) as a part of the second ten-year CO limited
maintenance plan, within the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico
area. Chevron submitted a chart indicating the downward trend of
calculated CO concentrations in the area for the recent years to
substantiate its position.
Response to Comment #1: The Act assigns to the states initial and
primary responsibility for formulating a plan to achieve the NAAQS. It
is up to the state to prepare state implementation plans which contain
specific pollution control measures. An examination of this SIP
submittal reveals no record of the Commenters having provided input or
submitted comments to the State or the Albuquerque Environmental Health
Department (AEHD) during their rulemaking process. The EPA's
responsibilities under the Act are qualitatively different from those
of the state agency. The EPA is charged with reviewing and approving or
disapproving the enforceable implementation plans prepared by states
and other political subdivisions identified in the statute. It is not
EPA's role to disapprove the State's choice of control strategies if
that strategy will result in attainment or continued maintenance of the
NAAQS, and meets all other applicable statutory requirements. See Union
Electric v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246 (1976); Train v. NRDC 421 U.S 60 (1975).
The EPA's role in reviewing SIP submittals is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Federal inquiry into
the reasonableness of state action is not allowed under the Act (see,
Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-266 (1976); 42 U.S.C.
7410(a)(2)). Under section 116 of the Act, with certain exceptions not
relevant here, a State retains the right to adopt and enforce any
requirement respecting control or abatement of air pollution, including
more stringent emissions standards and limitations. The State has
submitted information indicating that the administrative requirements
of New Mexico law have been met. We can agree with the Commenters'
statement that all CO emissions in the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County
are not from mobile sources. However, the CO emissions inventory Table
I of the April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19702) direct final rule indicates that
more than 84% (398.14/473.34) of the CO emissions in the area are
mobile source related. We can agree with the Commenters that the
overall trend as shown in the chart, provided by the Commenters,
indicates a downward trend for the calculated CO concentrations in the
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County area for recent years. However, we
consider this downward trend to be attributable to the success of
control measures and implementation of enforceable air quality plans
adopted by Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. Thus, removing the oxygenated
fuel content requirement as requested by the Commenters (even if EPA
had such authority which, as explained previously, it does not) could
potentially cause CO concentrations in the area to increase. We believe
that the measures adopted by the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County are
adequate, and reflect a coherent way air planning and transportation
have come together to address air quality issues in the area. For all
of these stated reasons, we disagree with the Commenters's opposition
to the existing program.
Comment #2: Chevron states that on multiple occasions this past
season the railroad was unable to deliver ethanol tank cars into their
terminal when they were needed. Chevron also stated they experienced
similar problems in their Phoenix and Las Vegas terminals, as well. In
those instances, Chevron claims that they had to arrange to purchase
and truck ethanol into their terminals to
[[Page 41965]]
ensure a continuous and reliable supply to the customers.
Response to Comment #2: This comment is not relevant to today's
rulemaking action. Various forms of the Oxygenated Fuels Program have
been in place since 1988 in the area, and EPA approved the Program
utilizing ethanol in 1993. Today's rulemaking only approves minor
grammatical and typographical changes to the existing program; it does
not change the substance of the program EPA approved in 1993. Chevron's
concern about ethanol supply to meet the existing program, therefore,
is not relevant to today's action.
As noted previously, the State has the authority to include these
measures under section 116 of the Act in its SIP. Again, comments
concerning ethanol supply issues should have also been directed to the
State. Therefore, we can not delete these measures from the SIP, if the
State has adopted or wants to include them in its SIP.
As far as Chevron's Albuquerque terminal operation is concerned, we
believe that the delivery and on-time availability of ethanol scenarios
described above are largely business strategy related matters rather
than a CO maintenance issue. Such matters are best addressed through
merchandise inventory preparations, factoring storage tank design/
capacity estimates, advance scheduling/planning, and forecasting
considerations.
This concludes our responses to the written comments we received
during public comment period concerning the April 14, 2005 (70 FR
19723), New Mexico proposed SIP revision.
4. What Areas in New Mexico Will These Rule Revisions Affect?
These rule revisions affect all sources of air emissions operating
within the Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico area.
II. Final Action
Today, we are finalizing approval of the CO limited maintenance
plan and its relevant parts of the NMAC including revisions to the
General Provisions (``Resolutions,'' ``Definitions,'' and
``Interpretation''), I&M Program, the Oxygenated Fuels Program, and the
contingency measures. We published the proposal for this approval on
April 14, 2005 (70 FR 19723).
III. 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 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 September 19, 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, Carbon monoxide,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: July 14, 2005.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
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 GG--New Mexico
0
2. Section 52.1620 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (c), in the second table entitled ``EPA Approved
Albuquerque/
[[Page 41966]]
Bernalillo County, NM Regulations,'' by revising the entries for parts
1, 100, and 102.
0
b. In paragraph (e), in the second table entitled ``EPA Approved
Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New
Mexico SIP'' by adding one new entry to the end of the table. The
revisions read as follows:
Sec. 52.1620 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
EPA Approved Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, NM Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
approval/ EPA
State citation Title/subject effective approval Explanation
date date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, Air Quality Control Regulations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
New Mexico Administrative Code (NMAC) Title 20--Environment Protection, Chapter 11--Albuquerque/Bernalillo
County Air Quality Control Board
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 1 (20.11.1 NMAC).............. General Provisions........ 09/07/04 7/21/05
[Insert FR
page where
document
begins]
* * * * * * *
Part 100 (20.11.100 NMAC).......... Motor Vehicle Inspection-- 09/07/04 7/21/05
Decentralized. [Insert FR
page where
document
begins]
Part 102 (20.11.102 NMAC).......... Oxygenated Fuels.......... 09/07/04 7/21/05
[Insert FR
page where
document
begins]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
EPA Approved Nonregulatory Provisions and Quasi-Regulatory Measures in the New Mexico SIP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State
submittal EPA
Name of SIP provision Applicable geographic or date/ approval Explanation
nonattainment area effective date
date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Second 10-year maintenance plan Bernalillo County......... 09/07/04 7/21/05
(limited maintenance plan) for [Insert FR
Albuquerque/Bernalillo County. page where
document
begins]
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 41967]]
0
3. Section 52.1627 is amended by designating the existing text as
paragraph (a) and by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1627 Control strategy and regulations: Carbon monoxide.
* * * * *
(b) Approval--The Albuquerque/Bernalillo County carbon monoxide
limited maintenance plan revision dated September 7, 2004, meets the
requirements of section 172 of the Clean Air Act, and is therefore
approved.
[FR Doc. 05-14388 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
