Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 35157-35159 [06-5508]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
employee from each employer in such
calendar year for such services. This
exclusion from wages has no
application to remuneration paid for
services performed as a home worker
who is an employee under section
3121(d)(2) (see § 31.3121(d)–1(c))
relating to common law employees.
(d) Cash remuneration includes
checks and other monetary media of
exchange. Remuneration paid in any
other medium, such as clothing, car
tokens, transportation passes or tickets,
or other goods or commodities, is
disregarded in determining whether the
$100 cash-remuneration test is met. If
the cash remuneration paid in any
calendar year by an employer to an
employee for services performed as a
home worker of the character described
in paragraph (a) of this section is $100
or more, then no remuneration, whether
in cash or in any medium other than
cash, paid by the employer to the
employee in such calendar year for such
services is excluded from wages under
this exception.
(e)(1) For provisions relating to
deductions of employee tax or amounts
equivalent to the tax from cash
payments for services performed as a
home worker within the meaning of
section 3121(d)(3)(C), see § 31.3102–1.
(2) For provisions relating to the time
of payment of wages for services
performed as a home worker within the
meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C), see
§ 31.3121(a)–2.
(3) For provisions relating to records
to be kept with respect to payment of
wages for services performed as a home
worker within the meaning of section
3121(d)(3)(C), see § 31.6001–2.
(f) The provisions of this section
apply to any payment for services
performed as a home worker within the
meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C) made
on or after January 1, 1978. For rules
applicable to any payment for services
performed as a home worker within the
meaning of section 3121(d)(3)(C) made
prior to January 1, 1978, see
§ 31.3121(a)(10)–1 in effect at such time
(see 26 CFR part 31 contained in the
edition of 26 CFR parts 30 to 39, revised
as of April 1, 2006).
I Par. 7. Section 31.3121(i)–1 is
amended as follows:
I 1. Redesignate the existing text as
paragraph (a).
I 2. Remove the language ‘‘quarter’’
each place it appears and add ‘‘year’’ in
its place in newly designated paragraph
(a).
I 3. Add new paragraph (b).
The addition reads as follows:
§ 31.3121(i)–1 Computation to nearest
dollar of cash remuneration for domestic
service.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) The provisions of this section
apply to any cash payment for domestic
service in a private home of the
employer made on or after January 1,
1994. For rules applicable to any cash
payment for domestic service in a
private home of the employer made
prior to January 1, 1994, see
§ 31.3121(i)–1 in effect at such time (see
26 CFR part 31 contained in the edition
of 26 CFR parts 30 to 39, revised as of
April 1, 2006).
Mark E. Matthews,
Deputy Commissioner for Services and
Enforcement.
Approved: June 8, 2006.
Eric Solomon,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary of the
Treasury.
[FR Doc. E6–9532 Filed 6–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0281; FRL–8182–2]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, South Coast Air
Quality Management District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
AGENCY:
Rule
number
Local agency
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
SCAQMD ..........................................................
We proposed to approve this revision
of Rule 1309.1 because we determined
that the revision complied with the
relevant CAA requirements. Our
proposed action contains more
information on the revised rule and our
evaluation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Jun 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
1309.1
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of
a revision to the South Coast Air Quality
Management District (District) portion
of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This revision was proposed
in the Federal Register on March 29,
2006. The revision adds qualifying
electric generating facilities to the list of
stationary sources that are allowed to
use emission reduction credits from a
bank of credits maintained by the
District. We are approving the revision
of a local District rule that was approved
in 1996 under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Effective Date: This rule is
effective on July 19, 2006.
DATES:
EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2006–0281 for
this action. The index to the docket is
available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
ADDRESSES:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3534, Yannayon.Laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
I. Proposed Action
On March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15656),
EPA proposed to approve a revision of
District Rule 1309.1, Priority Reserve
Bank, into the California SIP.
Adopted
Priority Reserve ................................................
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received two comment
letters: one from Adams Broadwell
Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of California
Unions for Reliable Energy, Kristopher
Frm 00015
Final rule.
Rule title
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
PO 00000
ACTION:
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
35157
05/03/02
Submitted
12/23/02
Johns and Donald Lee Selby, Jr.
(hereinafter collectively ‘‘CURE’’) and
one from the District. We have prepared
a separate detailed response to CURE’s
comment that is available in the final
docket on this rulemaking. In this
action, we are providing a summary of
the comment and our response.
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
35158
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
In summary, CURE commented that
the revision of Rule 1309.1 does not
ensure that emission reduction credits
provided to qualifying electric
generating facilities from the Priority
Reserve fund will comply with the
requirements of section 173(c) of the
Clean Air Act. EPA disagrees with the
comment. EPA approved Rule 1309.1 on
December 4, 1996. 61 FR 64291
(December 4, 1996). In approving Rule
1309.1 in 1996, we determined that the
District’s implementation of a tracking
system demonstrated that the Priority
Reserve bank’s emission reduction
credits complied with the requirements
of section 173(c). 61 FR 64292. CURE’s
comment that the Priority Reserve
bank’s emissions reduction credits
should be reserved for use by essential
public services rather than qualifying
electric generating facilities seeks to
overturn a policy decision that is within
the discretion of the local permitting
authority. In this instance, the District
Board decided in 2002, following an
electricity shortage, to provide banked
emission reduction credits to qualifying
electric generating facilities if credits
were not otherwise available. The
District’s basis for its decision is set
forth in its comment letter dated April
25, 2006, which is available in the
docket. EPA’s role is to determine
whether the SIP revision meets the
requirements of the CAA. The comment
does not provide information showing
that adding qualifying electric
generating facilities to the list of sources
eligible to use emission reduction
credits from the Priority Reserve Fund
does not satisfy the requirements of
section 173(c).
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
III. EPA Action
CURE’s comment letter has not
changed our assessment that the
District’s revision of Rule 1309.1
complies with the relevant CAA
requirements. The District’s comment
letter supports EPA’s proposed action.
Therefore, as authorized in section
110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully
approving this revision of Rule 1309.1
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
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Jun 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
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
(Public Law 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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 August 18, 2006.
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, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 25, 2006.
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)(311)(i)(A)(3) to
read as follows:
I
§52.220
*
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
(311) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 117 / Monday, June 19, 2006 / Rules and Regulations
copy at the EPA, Region 10, Office of
Air, Waste and Toxics (AWT–107), 1200
Sixth Avenue, Seattle WA. EPA requests
that, if at all possible, you contact the
individual listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section to
schedule your inspection. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30
excluding legal holidays.
(3) Rule 1309.1, adopted on May 3,
2002.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 06–5508 Filed 6–16–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[EPA–R10–OAR–2006–0010; FRL–8179–5]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Lakeview PM10 Maintenance Plan and
Redesignation Request
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
wwhite on PROD1PC61 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY: On March 22, 2006, EPA
published a direct final rule to approve
a PM10 State Implementation Plan (SIP)
maintenance plan revision for the
Lakeview, Oregon nonattainment area
and to redesignate the area from
nonattattainment to attainment for
PM10. PM10 air pollution is suspended
particulate matter with a nominal
diameter less than or equal to a nominal
ten micrometers. We stated in the direct
final rule that if EPA received adverse
comment, we would publish a timely
withdrawal of the direct final rule. We
received adverse comment on the direct
final rule, and, therefore, in a separate
action, are withdrawing our direct final
rule. In a parallel notice of proposed
rulemaking, also published on March
22, 2006, we stated that if we received
adverse comments we would address all
public comments in a subsequent final
rule based on the proposed rule. This
final action addresses the adverse
comments we received and finalizes our
approval of the SIP revision and
redesignation request for the Lakeview
PM10 nonattainment area.
DATES: This final rule is effective July
19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R10–OAR–2006–0010. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:59 Jun 16, 2006
Jkt 208001
Donna Deneen, Office of Air, Waste and
Toxics (AWT–107), EPA Region 10,
1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101;
telephone number: (206) 553–6706; fax
number: (206) 553–0110; e-mail address:
deneen.donna@epa.gov.
Throughout this document wherever
‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean
EPA.
Table of Contents
I. What Is the Background of This
Rulemaking?
II. What Comments Did We Receive on the
Proposed Action?
III. What Is Our Final Action?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Is the Background of This
Rulemaking?
On October 25, 2005, the State of
Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality (DEQ or State) submitted a SIP
revision and redesignation request for
the Lakeview, Oregon PM10
nonattainment area. On March 22, 2006,
EPA published a direct final rule to
approve this SIP revision and request on
the basis that the State’s submission
adequately demonstrated that the
control measures being implemented in
the Lakeview area result in maintenance
of the PM10 National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and all
other requirements of the Clean Air Act
(the Act) for redesignation to attainment
are met. 71 FR 14399. We stated in the
direct final rule that if EPA received
adverse comment, we would publish a
timely withdrawal of the direct final
rule. We received adverse comment on
the direct final rule, and, therefore, in a
separate action, are withdrawing our
direct final rule. In a parallel notice of
proposed rulemaking, also published on
March 22, 2006, we stated that if we
received adverse comments we would
address all public comments in a
subsequent final rule based on the
proposed rule. 71 FR 14438. This final
action addresses the adverse comments
we received and finalizes our approval
of the State’s SIP revision and
redesignation request for the Lakeview
PM10 nonattainment area.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
35159
II. What Comments Did We Receive on
the Proposed Action?
We received one comment on the
proposed rulemaking. This comment
was from the Oregon Division of the
Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA). FHWA’s comment and our
response are summarized as follows:
Comment: The commenter expressed
concern that the language stating that
‘‘the motor vehicle emissions budget is
established for all years’’ could be
interpreted to mean that a budget for
Lakeview is created for each year, 2006
through 2017. The commenter added
that since transportation conformity
requires a demonstration of meeting
budgets for every year a budget is
established, requiring the Department of
Transportation to demonstrate meeting a
budget for each year through 2017
seems to be overly burdensome and
return little value. The commenter
concluded that demonstrating that the
2017 budget is met, as well as any
required interim years, meets the
purpose of the Clean Air Act and this
SIP.
Response: EPA’s statement that the
motor vehicle emissions budget is
established for all years is in the
preamble to our rulemaking at 71 FR
14404 (March 22, 2006). Because this
statement is based on information in the
State’s SIP submittal, we asked DEQ to
clarify the period for which the motor
vehicle emissions budget is established.
In a letter to EPA, dated May 2, 2006,
DEQ clarified that the motor vehicle
emissions budget is established for the
Lakeview PM10 nonattainment area for
2017 and that DEQ never intended to
require a yearly transportation
conformity analysis. DEQ added that
analysis years are determined by the
conformity rule and through interagency
consultation and that DEQ does not
believe that its language could be, or
should be, interpreted to mean that an
analysis must be conducted every year.
The phrase ‘‘for all years’’ makes clear
that if, as a result of conformity rules
and interagency consultation, an
intervening year conformity
determination is required or needed,
then the budget established for 2017
governs.
Based on the comment from FHWA,
the clarifying letter from DEQ, the SIP
revision for the Lakeview PM10
nonattainment area, and 40 CFR
93.118(b)(2)(i), which sets the minimum
years for which a regional emissions
analyses must be conducted, we are
clarifying that the motor vehicle
emissions budget for Lakeview is
established for 2017. Accordingly, the
E:\FR\FM\19JNR1.SGM
19JNR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 117 (Monday, June 19, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35157-35159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-5508]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0281; FRL-8182-2]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South
Coast Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of a revision to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (District) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision was proposed in the
Federal Register on March 29, 2006. The revision adds qualifying
electric generating facilities to the list of stationary sources that
are allowed to use emission reduction credits from a bank of credits
maintained by the District. We are approving the revision of a local
District rule that was approved in 1996 under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on July 19, 2006.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0281 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Yannayon, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3534, Yannayon.Laura@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Proposed Action
On March 29, 2006 (71 FR 15656), EPA proposed to approve a revision
of District Rule 1309.1, Priority Reserve Bank, into the California
SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule
Local agency number Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD................................. 1309.1 Priority Reserve.......... 05/03/02 12/23/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to approve this revision of Rule 1309.1 because we
determined that the revision complied with the relevant CAA
requirements. Our proposed action contains more information on the
revised rule 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 two comment letters: one from Adams
Broadwell Joseph & Cardozo on behalf of California Unions for Reliable
Energy, Kristopher Johns and Donald Lee Selby, Jr. (hereinafter
collectively ``CURE'') and one from the District. We have prepared a
separate detailed response to CURE's comment that is available in the
final docket on this rulemaking. In this action, we are providing a
summary of the comment and our response.
[[Page 35158]]
In summary, CURE commented that the revision of Rule 1309.1 does
not ensure that emission reduction credits provided to qualifying
electric generating facilities from the Priority Reserve fund will
comply with the requirements of section 173(c) of the Clean Air Act.
EPA disagrees with the comment. EPA approved Rule 1309.1 on December 4,
1996. 61 FR 64291 (December 4, 1996). In approving Rule 1309.1 in 1996,
we determined that the District's implementation of a tracking system
demonstrated that the Priority Reserve bank's emission reduction
credits complied with the requirements of section 173(c). 61 FR 64292.
CURE's comment that the Priority Reserve bank's emissions reduction
credits should be reserved for use by essential public services rather
than qualifying electric generating facilities seeks to overturn a
policy decision that is within the discretion of the local permitting
authority. In this instance, the District Board decided in 2002,
following an electricity shortage, to provide banked emission reduction
credits to qualifying electric generating facilities if credits were
not otherwise available. The District's basis for its decision is set
forth in its comment letter dated April 25, 2006, which is available in
the docket. EPA's role is to determine whether the SIP revision meets
the requirements of the CAA. The comment does not provide information
showing that adding qualifying electric generating facilities to the
list of sources eligible to use emission reduction credits from the
Priority Reserve Fund does not satisfy the requirements of section
173(c).
III. EPA Action
CURE's comment letter has not changed our assessment that the
District's revision of Rule 1309.1 complies with the relevant CAA
requirements. The District's comment letter supports EPA's proposed
action. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA
is fully approving this revision of Rule 1309.1 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 (Public Law 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 August 18, 2006. 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, Ozone, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: May 25, 2006.
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)(311)(i)(A)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(311) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
[[Page 35159]]
(3) Rule 1309.1, adopted on May 3, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-5508 Filed 6-16-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P