Federal Register / Vol. 70;" No. 78 / Monday, April' 25, .2005 / Rules and Regulations

the eye." is removed and the language "all of which are for treatment of the

eye." is added in its place.

PART 2590-RULES AND

REGULATIONS FOR GROUP HEALTH

PLANS

m Paragraph 1. The authority citation for

part 2590 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1027, 1059, 1135,

1161-1168, 1169, 1181-1183, 1181 note,

1185, 1185a, 1185b, 1191, 1191a, 1191b, and

1191c, sec. 101(g), Public Law 104-191, 101

Stat. 1936; sec. 401(b), Public Law 105-200,

112 Stat. 645 (42 U.S.C. 651 note); Secretary

of Labor's Order 1-2003, 68 FR 5374 (Feb. 3,

2003).

§ 2590.731 [Corrected]

0 2. Section 2590.731(c)(2)(i), the

language "§ 2590.701-3(a)(1)(i) (for

purposes of" is removed and the

language "§ 2590.701-3(a)(2)(i) (for

purposes of" is added in its place.

m 3. Section2 590.731(c)(2)(ii), the

language "and § 2590.701-3(a)(1)(ii) (for

purposes" is removed and the language

"§ 2590.701-3(a)(2)(ii) (for purposes" is

added in its place.

n 4. Section 2590.731(c)(2)(iii), the

language "the Act and §§ 2590.701-

3(a)(1)(iii) and" is removed and the

language "the Act and §§ 2590.701-

3(a)(2)(iii) and" is added in its place.

PART 146-REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

GROUP HEALTH INSURANCE

MARKET

m Paragraph 1. The authority citation for

part 146 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs 2701 through 2763, 2791,

and 2792, of the Public Health Service Act,

42 U.S.C. 300gg through 300gg-63, 300gg-91,

30gg-92 as amended by HIPAA (Pub. L. 104-

191, 110 Stat. 1936), MHPA (Pub. L. 104-204,

110 Stat. 2944, as amended by Pub. L. 107-

116, 115 Stat. 2177), NMHPA (Pub. L. 104-

204, 110 Stat. 2935), WHCRA (Pub. L. 105-

277, 112 Stat. 2681-436), and section

103(c)(4) of HIPAA.

§ 146.125- (Corrected]

M 5. Section 146.125, the language

"Sections 146.111 through 146.119," is

removed and the language "Section

144.103, §§ 146.111 through 146.119," is

added in its place.

§ 146.143 [Corrected]

n 6. Section 146.143(b), the language "section 514 of the Act with respect to"

is removed and thd language "section

514 of ERISA with respect to" is added

in its place.

a 7. Section 146.143(c)(2)(i), the

language "§ 146.111(a)(1)(i) (for

purposes, of" is removed and the

language "§ 146.111(a)(2)(i) (for

purposes of" is added in its place.

a 8. Section 146.143(c)(2)(ii), the

language "PHS Act and

§ 146.111(a)(1)(ii) (for" is removed and

the language "PHS Act and

§ 146.111(a)(2)(ii) (for" is added in its

place.

* 9. Section 146.143(c)(2)(iii), the

language "the PHS Act and

§§ 146.111(a)(1)(iii)" is removed and the

language "the PHS Act and

§§ 146.111(a)(2)(iii)" is added in its

place.

Cynthia E. Grigsby,

Acting Chief, Publications and Regulations

Branch Legal Processing Division, Associate

Chief Counsel (Procedure and

Administration), Internal Revenue Service,

Department of the Treasury.

Dated this 16th day of March,.2005.

Ann Agnew,

Executive Secretary, Department of Health

and Human Services.

Dated this 15th day of February, 2005.

Daniel J. Maguire,

Director, Office of Health Plan Standards and

Compliance Assistance, Employee Benefits

Security Administration, Department of

Labor.

[FR Doc. 05-8154 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P; 4510-29-P; 4120-01-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL-7885-71

Finding of Failure To Submit Section

110 State Implementation Plans for

Interstate Transport for the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards for 8-

.Hour Ozone and PM 2.5

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

Regional offices

Dave Conroy, Acting Branch Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA New

England, I Congress Street, Suite 1100, Boston, MA 02114-2023,

(617) 918-1661.

Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region II, 290

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, NY 10007-1866, (212) 637-4249.

Makeba Morris, Branch Chief, Air Quality Planning Branch, EPA Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103-2187, (215) 814-

2187.

Connecticut, Maine,

and Vermont.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is today making a

finding that States have failed to submit

State Implementation Plans (SIPs) to

satisfy the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA) for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

(particles with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 2.5

micrometers) National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS). Section

110(a)(1) of the CAA requires that States

submit SIPs to meet the applicable

requirements of section 110(a)(2) within

3 years after the promulgation of a new

or revised NAAQS, or within such

shorter period as EPA may provide.

Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), States are

required to submit SIPs that satisfy the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

related to interstate transport of

pollution. At present; States have not

yet submitted SIPs to satisfy this

requirement of the CAA, and EPA is by

this action making a finding of failure to

submit which starts a 2-year clock for

the promulgation of a Federal

'Implementation Plan (FIP) by EPA

unless, prior to that time, each State

makes a submission to meet the

requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)

and EPA approves such submission.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is

May 25, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

General questions concerning this final

rule should be addressed to Mr. Larry D.

Wallace, Ph.D., Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, Air Qaulity

Strategies and Standards Division, Mail

Code C504-02, Research Triangle Park,

N.C. 27711; telephone (919) 541-0906.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

questions related to a specific State,

please contact the appropriate regional

office:

States

Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island,

New Jersey, New York, Puerto Rico, and Virgin Islands.

Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania,,Virginia, and

West Virginia.

21147

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21147 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

Regional offices

Richard A. Schutt, Chief, Regulatory Development Section, EPA Region IV, Sam Nun Atlanta Federal Center, 61 Forsyth, Street, SW,

12th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30303, Kentucky, (404) 562-9033.

Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region V, 77 West

Jackson Street, Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-4447.

Rebecca Weber, Associate Director Air Programs, EPA'Region VI,

1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, TX 75202, (214) 665-7200.

Joshua A. Tapp, Chief, Air Programs Branch, EPA Region VII, 901

North 5th Street, Kansas City, Kansas 66101-2907, (913) 551-7606.

Richard R. Long, Director, Air and Radiation Program, EPA Region

VIII, 999 18th, Suite 300, Denver, CO 80202, (303) 312-6005.

Steven Barhite, Air Planning Office, EPA Region IX, -75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 972-3980.

Mahbubul Islam, Manager, State and Tribal Air Programs, EPA Region

X, Office of Air, Waste, and Toxics, Mail Code OAQ-1 07, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, (206) 553-6985.

States

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, .Mississippi, North Carolina,

South Carolina, and Tennessee.

Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, and Wisconsin.

Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas.

Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, and Nebraska.

Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming.

Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, and Nevada.

Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington.

Table of Contents

I. Background

II. Today's Action

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Notice and Comment Under the

Administrative Procedures Act

B. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

and Safety Risks

I. Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

J. National Technology Transfer

Advancement Act

K. Congressional Review Act

L. Judicial Review

1. Background

On July 18, 1997, EPA issued new

standards for the 8-hour ozone and

particulate matter (PM) NAAQS. For

ozone, EPA revised the NAAQS by

adding an 8-hour averaging period

(versus 1 hour for the previous

NAAQS), and the level of the standard

was changed from 0.12 ppm to 0.08

ppm (62 FR 38856). For the PM

NAAQS, EPA added a new 24-hour

standard and a new annual standard for

PM2.5.

Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA requires

States to submit new SIPs that provide

for the implementation, maintenance,

and enforcement a new or revised

standard within 3 years after

promulgation of such standard, or

within such shorter period as EPA may

prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) lists the

elements that such new SIPs must

address, including section

110(a)(2)(D)(i) which applies to

interstate transport of certain emissions.

Section 110(a)(1) imposes the obligation

upon States to make a SIP submission

for a new or revised NAAQS, but the

contents of that submission may vary

depending upon the facts and

circumstances. In particular, the data

and analytical tools available at the time

the State develops and submits the SIP

for a new: or revised NAAQS necessarily

affects the content of the submission.

For the 8-hour ozone standard and the

PM2.5 standards, States. should already

have sublnitted SIPs that satisfied the

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirement

related to interstate transport for these

new NAAQS. At present, States have

not submitted plans to satisfy this

requirement, and EPA is today making

a finding of failure to submit. This

finding starts a 2-year clock for

promulgation by EPA of a FIP, in

accordance with section 110(c)(1), for

any State that does not submit a SIP

meeting the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the PM2.5 and 8-hour

ozone NAAQS. This action does not

start a sanctions clock pursuant to

section 179 because this finding of

failure to submit does not pertain to a

part D plan for nonattainment areas

required under section 110(a)(2)(I) and

because this action is not a SIP Call

pursuant to section 110(k)(5).

II. Today's Action

By today's action, EPA is making the

finding that States have failed to submit

SIPs to satisfy the requirements of

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA for the

8-hour ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. This

finding starts a 2-year clock for the

promulgation by EPA of a FIP, unless

each State submits a SIP to satisfy the

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements, and

EPA approves such submission prior to

that time. Today's action will be

effective on May 25, 2005.

I. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

A. Notice and Comment Under the

Administrative Procedures Act

This is a final EPA action, but is not

subject to notice-and-comment

requirements of the Administrative

Procedures Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b).

The EPA invokes, consistent with past

practice (for example, 61 FR 36294), the

good cause exception pursuant to APA,

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). Notice and

comment are unnecessary because no

significant EPA judgment is involved in

making a finding of failure to submit

SIPs or elements of SIPs required by the

CAA, where States have made no submissions to meet the requirement by

the statutory date.

B. Execqtive Order 12866: Regulatory

Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), EPA must

determine whether the regulatory action

is "significant" and, therefore, subject to

OMB review and the requirements of

the Executive Order. The order defines

"significant regulatory action" as one

that is likely to result in a rule that may:

(1) Have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more or

adversely affect in a material way the

economy, a sector of the economy,

productivity, competition, jobs, the

environment, public health or safety, or

State, local, or Tribal governments or

communities;

(2) Create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency;

(3) Materially alter the budgetary

impact of entitlements, grants, user fees,

or loan programs or the rights and

obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues,

arising out of legal mandates, the

President's priorities, or the principles

set forth in the Executive Order.

21148

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21148 2005
Federal Register/Vol. -70, No. 78/Monday, April 25, 2005/Rules and Regulations

Pursuant to tie terms of Executive

Order 12866, a determination has been

made that this rule is not a "significant

regulatory action" because none of the

above factors apply. As such, this final

action was not formally submitted to

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for review.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an

information collection burden under the

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. This rule

relates to the requirement in the CAA

for States to submit SIPs under section

110(a)(1) to satisfy certain infrastructure

and general authority-related elements

required under section 110(a)(2) of the

CAA for the 8-hour ozone and the

PM2.5 NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the

CAA requires that States submit SIPs

that implement, maintain, and enforce a

new'or revised NAAQS which satisfies

the requirements of section 110(a)(2)

within 3 years of promulgation of such

standard, or shorter period as EPA may

provide. The present final rule does not

establish any new information

collection requirement apart from that

required by law. Burden means that

total time, effort, or financial resources

expended by persons to generate,

maintain, retain, or disclose or provide

information to or for a Federal agency.

This includes the time needed to review

instructions; develop, acquire, install,

and utilize technology and systems for

the purposes of collecting, validating,

and verifying information, processing

and maintaining information, and

disclosing and providing information;

adjust the existing ways to comply with

any previously applicable instructions

and requirements; train personnel to be

able to respond to a collection of

information; search data sources;

complete and review the collection of

information; and transmit or otherwise

disclose the information. An Agency

may not conduct or sponsor, and a

person is not required to respond to a

collection of information unless it

displays a currently valid OMB control

number. The OMB control numbers for

EPA's regulations in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) are listed in 40 CFR

part 9.

D. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements under the

Administrative Procedures Act (APA) or

any other statute unless the EPA

certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small organizations, and small

governmental jurisdictions.

For the purpose of assessing the

impacts of today's final rile on small

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A

small business that is a small industry

entity as defined in the U.S. Small

Business Administration (SBA) size

standards. (See 13 CFR, part 121); (2) a

small governmental jurisdiction that is a

government of a city, county, town,

school district or special district with a

population of less than 50,000; and (3)

a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise which independently

owned and operated is not -dominate in

its field.

Courts have interpreted the RFA to

require a regulatory flexibility analysis

only when small entities will be subject

to the requirements of the rule. See,

Michigan v. EPA, 213 F.3d 663, 668-69

(D.C. Cir., 2000), cert. den., 532 U.S. 903

(2001). This rule would not establish

requirements applicable to small

entities. Instead, it would require States

to develop, adopt, and submit SIPs to

meet the requirements of.section

110(a)(2)(D)(i), and would leave to the

States the task of determining how to

meet those requirements, including

which entities to regulate. Moreover,

because affected States would have

discretion to choose the sources to

regulate and how much emissions

reductions each selected source would

have to achieve, EPA could not predict

the effect of the rule on small entities.

After considering the economic

impacts of today's final rule on small

entities, I certify that this rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104-4, establishes requirements for

Federal Agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local

and Tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

EPA generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with "Federal mandates" that may

result in expenditures to State, local,

and Tribal governments, in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more in any 1 year.

Before promulgating an EPA rule for

which a written statement is needed,

section 205 of the UMRA generally

requires EPA to identify and consider a

reasonable number of regulatory

alternatives and adopt the least costly,

most cost-effective or least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule. The provisions of section

205 do not apply when they are

inconsistent with applicable law.

Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to

adopt an alternative other than the least

costly, most cost-effective or least

burdensome alternative if the

Administrator publishes with the final

rule an explanation of why that

alternative, was not adopted. Before EPA

establishes any regulatory requirements

that may significantly or uniquely affect

small governments, including Tribal

governments, it must have developed

under section 203 of the UMRA a small

government agency plan. The plan must

provide for notifying potentially

affected small governments to have

meaningful and timely input in the

development of EPA regulatory

proposals with significant Federal

intergovernmental mandates, and

informing, educating, and advising

small government on compliance with

regulatory requirements.

Today's action does not include a

Federal mahdate within the meaning of

UMRA that may result in expenditures

of $100 million or more in any 1 year

by either State, local, or Tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector, and therefore, is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202 and 205 of the UMRA. It does not

create any additional requirements

beyond those of the PM2.5 and 8-hour

ozone NAAQS (62 FR 38652; 62 FR

38856, July 18, 1997). Therefore, no

UMRA analysis is needed. This rule

responds to the requirement in the CAA

for States to submit SIPs under section

110(a)(1) to satisfy certain infrastructure

and general authority-related elements

required under section 110(a)(2) of the

CAA for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA

requires that States submit SIPs that

implement, maintain, and enforce a new

or revised NAAQS which satisfies the

requirements of section 110(a)(2) within

3 years of promulgation of such

standard, or shorter period as EPA may

provide.

Inasmuch as this action simply finds

that States have failed to submit SIPs to

address a pre-existing statutory

requirement under the CAA, this

Federal action will not imposJ

mandates that will require expenditures

of $100 million or more in the aggregate

in any 1 year. However, EPA notes, that

in another.final rule signed today (the

Clean Air Interstate Rule or CAIR), EPA

is making findings of significant

contribution for many States and

requiring the submission of SIPs that

will control sulfur dioxide and nitrogen

oxide emissions in order to eliminate

21149

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21149 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78/Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

interstate transport and that EPA has

estimated in that action that such

controls will have annual costs of $1.91

billion in 2010 and $2.56 billion in

2015, assuming a 3 percent discount

rate. The EPA, plans to issue separate

guidance concerning compliance with

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for States other

than those subject to the CAIR.

F. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132, entitled

"Federalism" (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999), requires EPA to develop an

accountable process to ensure "meaningful and timely input by State

and local officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have federalism

implications." "Policies that have

federalism implications" is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have "substantial direct

effects on the States, or the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government."

This final rule does not have

federalism implications. It will 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. The CAA

establishes the scheme whereby States

take the lead in-developing plans to

meet the NAAQS. This rule will not

modify the relationship of the States

and EPA for purposes of developing

programs to implement the NAAQS.

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not

apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13175: Consultation

and Coordination With Indian Tribal

Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled

"Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments" (65 FR

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA

to develop an accountable process to

ensure "meaningful and timely input by

Tribal officials in the development of

regulatory policies that have Tribal

implications." This final rule does not

have "Tribal implications" as specified

in Executive Order 13175. This rule

responds to the requirement in the CAA

for States to submit SIPs under section

110(a)(1) to satisfy certain elements

required under section 110(a)(2) of the

CAA for the 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA

requires that States submit SIPs that

provide for-implementation,

maintenance, and enforcement-of a new or revised NAAQS, and which satisfy

the applicable requirements of section

110(a)(2), within 3 years of

promulgation of such standard, or

within shorter period as EPA may

provide. The CAA provides for States

and Tribes to d6velop plans to regulate

emissions of air pollutants within their

jurisdictions. The regulations clarify the

statutory obligations of States and

Tribes that develop plans to implement

this rule. The Tribal Authority Rule

(TAR) gives Tribes the opportunity to

develop and implement CAA programs,

but it leaves to the discretion of the

Tribe whether to develop these

programs and which programs, or

appropriate elements of a program, the

Tribe will adopt.

This rule does not have Tribal

implications as defined by Executive

Order 13175. It does not have a

substantial direct effect on one or more

Indian Tribes, because no Tribe has

implemented an air quality management

program related to the 8-hour ozone or

the fine particle NAAQS at this time.

Furthermore, this rule does not affect

the relationship or distribution of power

and responsibilities between the Federal

government and Indian Tribes. The

CAA and the TAR establish the

relationship of the Federal government

and Tribes in developing plans to attain

the NAAQS, and this rule does nothing

to modify that relationship. Because this

rule does not have Tribal implications,

Executive Order 13175 does not apply.

H. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

and Safety Risks

Executive Order 13045: "Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April

23, 1997) applies to any rule that (1) is

determined to be "economically

significant" as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health and safety risk

that EPA has reason to believe may have

a disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

EPA must evaluate the environmental

health or safety effects of the planned

rule on children, and explain why the

planned regulation is preferable to other

potentially effective and reasonably

feasible alternatives considered by EPA.

This action is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it is not

economically significant as defined in

Executive Order 12866, and because

EPA does not have reason to believe that

the environmental health risks or safety

risks addressed by this rule present a

disproportionate risk or safety .risk to

children. Nonetheless, we have

evaluated the environmental health or safety effects of the PM2.5 and the 8-

hour ozone NAAQS on children, The

results of this risk assessment are

contained in the NAAQS for PM2.5 and

8-hour Ozone Standard, Final Rule [(62

FR 38652) and (62 FR 38856), July 18,

19971.

L Executive Order 13211: Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions That

Significantly Affect Energy Supply,

'Distribution, or Use," (66 FR 28355,

May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

Information on the methodology and

data regarding the assessment of

potential energy impacts is found in

Chapter 6 of U.S. EPA 2002, Cost,

Emission Reduction, Energy, and the

Implementation Framework for the

PM2.5 NAAQS, prepared by the

Innovative Strategies and Economics

Group, Office of Air Quality Planning

and Standards, Research Triangle Park,

N.C., April 24, 2003.

1. National Technology Transfer

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer Advancement Act

of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-

113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note)

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS) in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impracticable. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA

directs EPA to provide Congress,

through OMB, explanations when EPA

decides not to use available and

applicable VCS.

This action does not involve technical

standards. Therefore, EPA did not

consider the use of any VCS.

K. Congressional Review Act

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. The 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

21150

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21150 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78/Monday, April 25, 2005/Rules and Regulations 21151

publication of the rule in the Federal

Register.

L. Judicial Review

Section 307(b)(1) of the CAA indicates

which Federal Courts of Appeal have

venue for petitions of review of final

actions by EPA. This section provides,

in part, that petitions for review must be

filed in the Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit: (i) When

the EPA action consists of "nationally

applicable regulations promulgated, or

final actions taken, by the

Administrator," or (ii) when such action

is locally or regionally applicable, if

"such action is based on a

determination of nationwide scope or

effect and if in taking such action the.

Administrator finds and publishes that

'such action is based on such a

determination."

This action making afinding of failure

to submit related to the section

1.10(a)(2)(D)(i) requirements related to

the 8-hour ozone and the PM2.5

NAAQS is "nationally applicable"

within the meaning of section 307(b)(1).

For the same reasons, the

Administrator also is determining that

the requirements related to the finding

of failure to submit related to section

110(a)(2)(D)(i) is of nationwide scope

and effect for the purposes of section

307(b)(1). This is particularly

appropriate because in the report on the

.1977 Amendments that revised section

307(b)(1) of the CAA, Congress noted

that the Administrator's determination

that an action is of "nationwide scope

or effect" would be appropriate for any

action that has "scope or effect beyond

a single judicial circuit." H.R. Rep. No.

95-294 at 323, 324, reprinted in 1977

U.S.C.C.A.N. 1402-03. Here, the scope

and effect of this rulemaking extends to

.numerous judicial circuits since the

findings of failure to submit apply to all

areas of the country. In these

circumstances, section 307(b)(1) and its

legislative history call for the

Administrator to find the rule to be of

"nationwide scope or effect" and for

venue to be in the D.C. Circuit.

Thus, any petitions for review of this

action related to a findings of failure to

submit related to the requirements of

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) of the CAA must

be filed in the Court of Appeals for the

District -of Columbia Circuit within 60

days from the date final action is

published in the Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control.

Dated: March 10, 2005.

Stephen L. Johnson,

Acting EPA Administrator.

[FR Doc. 05-5319 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

.AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R09-OAR-2005-CA-01-; FRL-7900-3]

Revision to the California State

Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay

Unified Air Pollution Control District

and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is. taking direct final

action to approve revisions to the

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District (MBUAPCD) and San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of

the California State Implementation

Plan (SIP). The revisions concern the

emission of particulate matter (PM-10)

from open outdoor burning and from

incinerator burning. We are approving

local rules that regulate these emission

sources under the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990'(CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on June 24,

2005 without further notice, unless EPA

receives adverse comments by May 25,

2005. If we receive such comments, we

will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments,

identified by docket number R09-OAR2005-CA-01, by one of the following

methods:

1. Agency Web site: http://

docket.epa.govlrmepubl. EPA prefers

receiving comments through this

electronic public docket and comment

system. Follow the on-line instructions

to. submit comments.

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the

on-line instructions.

3. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

4. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105.

Instructions: All comments will be

included in the public docket without

change and may be made available

online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/,

including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes

Confidential Business Information _(CBI)

or other information whose disclosure is

restricted by statute. Information that

you consider CBI or otherwise protected

should be clearly identified as such and

should not be submitted through the

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or

e-mail. The agency Web site and

eRulemaking portal are "anonymous

access" systems, and EPA will not know

your identity or contact information

unless you provide it in the body of

your comment. If you send e-mail

directly to EPA, your e-mail address

will be automatically captured and

included as part of the public comment.

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.

Docket: The index to the docket for

this action is available electronically at

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub 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: Al

Petersen, RulemakIng Office (AIR-4),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, (415) 947-4118,

petersen.alfred@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, "we," "us"

and "our" refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

B. Are There Other Versions of These

Rules?

C. What Are the Purposes of the Submitted

Rule Revisions?

IL EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule and

Rule Revisions?

B. Do the Rule Revisions Meet the

Evaluation Criteria?

C. Public Comment and Final Action

II. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rules and dates that

MBUAPCD and SJVUAPCD revised the

local rules and when they were

submitted to EPA by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB).

70, -No. 78 /Monday, April 25, 2005 /Rules and Regulations Federal Register / Vol. 21151

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21151 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 78/Monday, April 25, 2005/Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.-SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised or Amended Submitted

MBUAPCD ......................... 408 Incinerator Burning ......................................................... 09/15/04 Revised ................ 01/13/05

MBUAPCD ......................... 438 Open Outdoor Fires ....................................................... 09/15/04 Revised ................ 01/13/05

SJVUAPCD ........................ 4103 Open Burning ................................................................. 09/16/04 Amended .............. 01/13/05

On February 16, 2005, the submittal

of January 13, 2005 was found to meet

the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part

51, appendix V, which must be met

before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of These

Rules?

We approved a version of MBUAPCD

Rule 408 into the SIP on January 31,

2003 (68 FR 4929) and Rule 438 on

January 12, 2004 (69 FR 1682). We

approved a version of SJVUAPCD Rule

4103 into the SIP on February 27, 2002

(67 FR 8894).

C. What Are the Purposes of the

Submitted Rule Revisions?

PM-10 harms human health and the

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA

requires states to submit regulations that

control PM-10 emissions.

The purposes of the submitted rule or

rule revisions are described below:

e MBUAPCD Rule 408 deletes the

exemption of paragraph 1.3.1 allowing

incinerator burning of yard trimmings

and brush in an area not served weekly

by a solid waste disposal service.

o MBUAPCD Rule 438 deletes the

exemption of paragraph 1.3.1.4 for

burning household rubbish at one- and

two-family homes in an area not served

weekly by a solid waste disposal

service; deletes the exemption of

paragraph 1.3.1.5 for burning household

rubbish at one- and two-family homes in

San Benito County; and deletes the

exemption of paragraph 1.3.1.6.1 for

burning cardboard and non-glossy paper

in a non-iicorporated area.

* SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 changes

paragraph 4.2.2 into paragraph 5.9,

Diseased Materials, which adds the

restrictions that the applicant obtain a

conditional, non-transferable permit

describing the material to be burned;

that the applicant not have a burning

violation in the last three years; and that

the county agricultural commissioner

determine there is no feasible

alternative to burning to prevent disease

or pests to cause a quantifiable

reduction on the yield of crops, animals,

or fowl.

The TSD has more information about

these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule and

Rule Revisions?

Generally, SIP rules must be

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the

CAA), must require Best Available

Control Measures (BACM) including,

-Best Available Control Technology

(BACT), for significant source categories

or major sources in serious PM-10

nonattainment areas (see section

189(b)), must require Reasonably

Available Control Measures (RACM)

including, Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT), for significant

source categories or major sources in

moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas

(see section 189(a)), and must not relax

. existing requirements (see sections

110(1) and 193). MBUAPCD is a PM-10

maintenance attainment area and need

not fulfill the requirements of BACM/

BACT or RACM/RACT. SJVUAPCD is a

serious PM-10 nonattainment area and

must fulfil the requirements of BACM/

BACT. See 40 CFR part 81.

The following guidance documents

were used for reference:

* Requirements for Preparation,

Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40

CFR part 51.

e PM-1O Guideline Document, EPA452/R-93-008.

B. Do the Rule Revisions Meet the

Evaluation Criteria?

We believe that MBUAPCD Rules 408

and 438 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 are

consistent with the relevant policy and

guidance regarding enforceability, SIP

relaxations, and the requirements of

BACM/BACT. The TSD has more

• information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of

the CAA, EPA is fully approving the

submitted SIP revisions because we

believe they fulfill all relevant

requirements. We do not think anyone

will object to this, sp we are finalizing

the approval without proposing it in

advance. However, in the Proposed

Rules section of this Federal Register,

we are simultaneously proposing

approval of the same submitted SIP

revision. If we receive adverse

comments by May 25, 2005, we will

publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register to notify the public

that the direct final approval will not

take effect and we will address the

comments in-a subsequent final action.

based on the proposal. If we do not

receive timely adverse comments, the

direct final approval will be effective

without further notice on June 24, 2005.

This will incorporate MBUAPCD Rules

408 and 438 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4103

into the federally enforceable SIP.

Please note that if EPA receives

adverse comment on an amendment,

paragraph, or section of this direct final

rule and if that provision may be

severed from the remainder of the rule,

EPA may adopt as final those provisions

of the rule that are not the subject of an

adverse comment.

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,

21152

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21152 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

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 theprovisions 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. section 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. section 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 June 24, 2005.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2).) .

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping'equirements.

Dated: March 29, 2005.

Wayne Nastri,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

.a Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52-[AMENDED]

n 1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

a 2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(335) to read as

follows:

§52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(335} New and amended regulations

for the following APCDs were submitted

on January 13, 2005, by the Governor's

designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 408, adopted on September 1,

1974 and revised on September 15,

2004.

(2) Rule 438, adopted on April 16,

2003 and revised on September 15,

2004.

(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

(1)'Rule 4103, adopted on June 18,

1992 and amended on September 16,

2004.

* * * * *€

[FR Doc. 05-8188 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 261

[R5-MIECOS-01;_SW-FRL-7902-9]

Hazardous Waste Management

System; Identification and Listing of

Hazardous Waste Final Exclusion

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA (also, "the Agency"

or "we" in this preamble) is granting a

petition to exclude (or "delisf")

wastewater treatment plant sludge from

conversion coating on aluminum

generated by the Ford Motor Company

Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant (DTP)

in Dearborn, Michigan from the list of

hazardous wastes.

Today's action conditionally excludes

the petitioned waste from the

requirements of hazardous waste

regulations under the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)

when disposed -of in a lined subtitle D

landfill which is permitted, licensed, or

registered by a State to manage

industrial solid waste. The exclusion

was proposed on March 7, 2002 as part

of an expedited process to evaluate this

waste under a pilot project developed

with the Michigan Department of

Environmental Quality (MDEQ). The

rule also imposes testing conditions for

waste generated in the future to ensure

that this waste continues to qualify for

delisting.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 25,

2005.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a

docket for this action under Docket ID

No. R5-MIECOS-01. All documents in

the docket are listed in the index.

Publicly available docket materials are

available in hard copy at the U.S. EPA

Region 5, 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago,

IL 60604. This Docket Facility is open

from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The

public may copy material from the

regulatory docket at $0.15 per page.

Contact Judy Kleiman for appointments

at the address above, by email at

kleiman.judy@epa.gov or by calling

(312) 886-1482.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

technical information concerning this

document, contact Judy Kleiman, Waste,

Pesticides, and Toxics Division, (Mail

Code: DW-8J), U.S. EPA Region 5, 77 W.

Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604;

telephone number: (312) 886-1482; fax

number: (312) 353-4788" e-mail address:

kleiman.judy@epa.gov.

21153

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21153 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

information in this section is organized

as follows:

I. Background

A. What is a delisting petition?

B. What regulations allow a waste to be

delisted?

C. What waste did DTP petition to delist?

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why was the expedited process

developed for this waste?

B. What is the expedited process to delist

F019?

III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition

A. What information was submitted in

support of this petition?

B. How did EPA evaluate the information submitted?

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Expedited Process

A. Who submitted comments on the

proposed rule?

B. Comments received and responses from

EPA

.V. Final Rule Granting These Petitions

A. What decision is EPA finalizihg?

B. What are the terms of this exclusion?

C. When is the delisting effective?

D. How does this action affect the states?

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What Is a Delisting Petition?

A delisting.petition is a request from

a generator to exclude waste from the

list of hazardous wastes under RCRA

regulations. In a delisting petit ion, the

petitioner must show that waste

generated at a particular facility does

not meet any of the criteria for which

EPA listed the waste as set forth in title

40 Code of Federal Regulations (40 CFR)

261.11 and the background document

for the waste. In addition, a petitioner

must demonstrate that the waste does

not exhibit any of the hazardous waste

characteristics (that is, ignitability,

reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and

must present sufficient information for

us to decide whether factors other than

those for which the waste was listed

warrant retaining it as a hazardous

waste. (See 40 CFR 260.22, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f) and the background documents

for a listed waste.)

Generators remain obligated under

RCRA to confirm that their waste

remains nonhazardous based on the

hazardous waste characteristics even if

EPA has "delisted" the wastes and to

ensure that future generated wastes

meet the conditions set.

B. What Regulations Allow a Waste To

Be Delisted?

Under 40 CFR 260.20, 260.22, and 42

U.S.C. 6921(f), facilities may petition'

the EPA to remove their wastes from

hazardous waste control by excluding

them from the lists of hazardous wastes

contained in 40 CFR 261.31 and 261.32.

Specifically, 40 CFR 260.20 allows any

person to petition the Administrator to

modify or revoke any provision of parts

260 through 266, 268, and 273 of 40'

CFR. 40 CFR 260.22 piovides a

generator the opportunity to petition the

Administrator to exclude a waste from

the lists of hazardous wastes on a "generator specific" basis.

C. What Waste Did DTP Petition To

Delist?

DTP petitioned to exclude wastewater

treatment sludge resulting from a zinc

phosphating conversion coating process

on truck bodies which have aluminum

components. When treated, the

wastewater from the conversion coating

on aluminum results in a listed waste,

F019. The wastewater from the

phosphating process entering the

wastewater treatment plant combines

with wastewaters from other operations

at the plant including cleaning and

rinsing operations, electrocoating

processes, vehicle leak testing, and floor

scrubbing. Wastewaters include alkaline

cleaners, surfactants, organic detergents,

rinse conditioners from cleaning

operations and overflows and rinse

water from electrocoating. All sludge

from the treatment of this wastewater is

regulated as RCRA hazardous waste

F019.

II. The Expedited Process for Delisting

A. Why Was the Expedited Process

Developed for This Waste?

Automobile manufacturers are adding

aluminum components to automobile

and light truck bodies. When aluminum

is conversion coated in a zinc

phosphating process in automobile

assembly plants, the resulting

wastewater treatment sludge must be

managed as EPA hazardous waste F019.

F019 wastes generated at other auto

assembly plants using the same zinc

phosphating and wastewater treatment

processes have been shown to be

nonhazardous.

This similarity of manufacturing

processes and the resultant wastes

provides an opportunity for the

automobile industry to be more efficient

in submifting delisting petitions and for

EPA to be more efficient in evaluating

them. Efficiency may be gained and

time saved by using a standardized

approach for gathering, submitting and

evaluating data. Therefore, EPA, in

conjunction with MDEQ; developed a

pilot project to expedite the delisting

process, This approach to making

delisting determinations for this group

of facilities is efficient while still being

consistent with current laws and

regulations and protective of human

health and the environment.

By removing regulatory controls

under RCRA, EPA is facilitating the use

of aluminum in cars. EPA believes that

incorporating aluminum in cars will be

advantaeous to the environment since

lighter cars are capable of achieving

better fuel economy.

B. What Is the Expedited Process To

Delist F01 9?

The expedited process to delist F019

is an approach developed through a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)

with MDEQ for gathering and evaluating

data in support of multiple petitions

from automobile assembly plants. The

expedited delisting process is applicable

to wastes generated by automobile and

light truck assembly plants in the State

of Michigan which use a similar

manufacturing process and generate

similar F019 waste.

Based on available historical data and

other information, the expedited process

identified 70 constituents which might

be of concern in the waste and provides

that-the F019 sludge generated by

automobile assembly plants may be

delisted if the levels of the 70

constituents do not exceed the

allowable levels established for each

constituent in this rulemaking. The

maximum annual quantity of waste

generated by any single facility which

may be covered by an expedited

delisting is 3,000 cubic yards. Delisting

levels were also proposed for smaller

quantities of 1,000 and 2,000 cubic

yards.

III. EPA's Evaluation of This Petition

A. What Information Was Submitted in

Support of This Petition?

DTP submitted certification that its

process was the same as the process

described in the MOU between Region

5 and MDEQ. See 67 FR 10341, March

7, 2002. The facility also asserted that

its waste does not meet the criteria for

which F019 waste was listed and there

are no other factors which might cause.

the waste to be hazardous.

To support its exclusion

demonstration, Ford Dearborn collected

six samples representing waste

generated over a seven week period.'

Each sample was analyzed for: (1) Total

analyses of 692 constituents of concern;

'Because the plant was shut down from July 4-

11, 2004, the time necessary to collect 6samples

was extended to 7 weeks.

2 The expedited delisting project originally

required analysis of 70 constituents. However, the

analysis of acrylamide required extreme methods to

achieve a detection level at the level of coflcern.

Since no acrylamide was detected in any sample

analyzed by the original facilities participating in

21154

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21154 2005
Federal, Register/Vol. 70, No. 78/Monday, April 25, 2005/Rules and Regulations

(2) Toxicity Characteristic Leaching

Procedure (TCLP), SW-846 Method

1311, analyses of 69 constituents of

concern; (3) oil and grease; and (4) total

constituent analyses for sulfide and

cyanide. In addition, the pH of each

sample was-measured and a

determination was made that the waste

was not ignitable, corrosive or reactive

(see 40 CFR 261.21-261.23). With the

exception of the minor change noted

here, all sampling and analyses were

done in accordance with the sampling

and analysis plan which is an appendix

to the MOU and is available in the

docket for this rule. Instead of sampling

directly from six different roll-off boxes

which would have required multiple

sampling events or long-term storage of

full roll-off boxes, DTP collected

representative amounts of sludge each

week from June 8 through July 27, 2004.

The sludge for each week was-placed in

a separate drum. On July 27, 2004,

composite and grab samples were

collected from each of the six drums.

The maximum values of constituents

detected in any sample of the waste and

in a TCLP extract of that waste are

summarized in the following table. The

data submitted included the appropriate

QA/QC information validated by a third

party.

Maximum observed concentration Maximum allowable

Ccconcentration GW Constituent detected Total TCLP Total TCLP (ug/L)

(mg/kg) (mg/L) (mg/kg) (mg/L)

Volatile Organic Compounds

formaldehyde ................................................ 13 0.64 700 80 1,400

n-butyl alcohol ................................. < 26 R < 0.5 R NA 230 4,000

toluene ....................................................................... < 0.5 0.0021 NA 60 1,000

Semivolatile Organic Compounds

bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate ......................................... 1.9 < 0.005 NA 0.09 1.5

p-cresol .................................................................. :. < 1.5 0.042 NA 11 200

di-n-octylphthalate ...................................................... 1.9 0.003 NA 0.11 1.3

pentachlorophenol ...................................................... < 1.5 0.0045 3,000 30,009 0.15

Metals

arsenic ........... : ........................................................... < 50 < 0.02 8,000 0.3 5

barium ........................................................................ 1700 1.02 NA 100 2 ,000

chrom ium ................................................................... 49 < 0.05 NA 5 100

,cobalt .... ................................ 1.7 0.03 NA 70 2,000

lead ........................................................................... 36 < 0.1 N A 5 15

nickel ............ ............................. 2610 38.9 NA 90 800

silver ........................................................................... 288 < 0.05 NA , 5 200

tin ........................................... 292 < 0.5 NA 700 20,000

vanadium ......................... i .......................................... 226 0.02 NA 70 300

zinc ............................................................................. 14,200 27.4 NA 900 11,000

Miscellaneous

corrosivity (pH) ..................... 2 <x <12.5 NA

O il & grease ............................................................... 8020 NA NA

sulfide ................... ......................... 36 See 40 CFR 261.23 NA

R-The numerical value is not useable."

<-Not detected at the specified concentration.

NA-not applicable. These levels represent the highest constituent cbncentration found in any one sample and do not necessarily represent the specific levels

found in one sample.

B. How Did EPA Evaluate the

Information Submitted?

EPA -compared the analytical results

submitted by DTP to the maximum

allowable levels calculated by the DRAS

and set forth in the proposed rule (67 FR

10341, March 7, 2002). The maximum

allowable levels for constituents

detected in the waste or a TCLP extract

of the waste are summarized in the table

above, along with the observed levels.

the expedited delisting project, the Agency dfcided

it would not be appropriate to require analysis for

acrylamide. 3 In the proposed rule, the allowable level for

TCLP PCP was set at 0.004 mg/L for participants

The table also includes the maximum

allowable levels in groundwater at a

potential receptor well, as evaluated by

the Delisting Risk Assessment Software

(DRAS). These levels are the more

conservative of either the Safe Drinking

Water Act Maximum Contaminant Level

(MCL) or the health-based value

calculated by DRAS based on the target

cancer risk level of 10- 6

. For arsenic,

the target cancer risk was set at 10- 4 in

consideration of the MCL and the

generating 2,000 cubic yards annually. This value was based on child-dermal exposure to

contaminated groundwater, but the model was found to overestimate this exposure by using an inappropriate exposure duration. This error in the

potential for natural occurrence. The

maximum allowable groundwater

concentration and delisting level for

arsenic correspond to a drinking water

concentration less than one half the

current MCL of 10 igg/L.

EPA also used the DRAS program to

estimate the aggregate caicer risk and

hazard index for constituents detected

in the waste. The aggregate cancer-risk

is the cumulative total of all individual

constituent cancer risks. The hazard

software has since been corrected. Using the correct

exposure factors, the limiting pathway is adultdermal exposure to contaminated groundwater with

an allowable level of 0.009 mg/L.

21155

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21155 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

index is a similar cumulative total of non-cancer effects. The target aggregate

cancer risk is 1x10- 5 and the target

hazard index is one. The wastewater

treatment plant sludge at DTP met both

of these criteria.

IV. Public Comments Received on the

Proposed Exclusion

A. Who Submitted Comments on the

Proposed Rule?

The EPA received public comments

on the proposed notice published on

March 7, 2002 from Alliance of

Automobile Manufacturers, Honda of

America Mfg., Inc., Alcoa Inc., and The

Aluminum Association. All commenters

were supportive of the proposal and

suggested expanding the project and

revising the listing.

B. Comments Received and Responses

From EPA

(1) Comment: EPA should revise the

F019 listing to specify that wastewater

treatment sludge from zinc phosphating

operations is not within the scope of the

listing. Data gathered as a result of the

Expedited Delisting Project together

with the available historical data,

should provide enough data to fully

characterize this waste and to justify a

revision of the listing.

EPA Response: The Agency is now considering revising the F019 listing.

EPA is examining the data collected as

a result of this project, as well as past

data, as a basis for a possible revision to

the F019 listing.

(2) Comment: EPA should issue an

interpretive rule clarifying that zinc

phosphating operations are outside the

scope of the F019 listing.

EPA Response: An interpretive rule

presents administrative and technical

difficulties. A revision to the listing will

require a rulemaking process. See

response to comment (1) above.

(3) Comment: Automobile assembly

fucilities outside of Michigan would like

to take advantage of the precedent set by

this expedited delisting project to delist

F019 generated by similar operations in

other states and regions.

EPA Response: The Agency believes

that the expedited delisting procedures

and requirements set forth in this

proposal are appropriate for similar

automotive assembly facilities outside

the State of Michigan, subject to the

discretion of the regulatory agency (state

or region).

(4) Comment: Alternatives to

landfilling like recycling should be

allowed within the petition process.

EPA Response: The Agency does not

delist wastes which are recycled

because the model used to estimate risk

is based only on disposal of waste in a subtitle D landfill. The risk which might.

result from any other scenario is not

evaluated by the delisting program.

However, the Agency encourages safe

recycling, and variances and exclusions

from the definition of solid and

hazardous wastes are available for

wastes which are recycled.

(5) Comment: Analytical methods

should be specified in the pre-approved

common sampling plan instead of

requiring each participant to submit a

site-specific list of methods.

EPA Response: Allowing the

petitioner to choose an analytical

method which meets the data quality

objectives specific to the delisting

petition provides flexibility. Data

quality objectives will vary depending

on the allowable levels which are a function of the volume of petitioned

waste. The Agency believes that the

flexibility of performance based

methods results in better data.

(6) Comment: Detection limits should

not be required prior to sampling since

they cannot be adequately predicted

without a way to estimate matrix effects.

EPA Response: Although matrix

effects cannot be assessed in advance of

laboratory analysis, a laboratory should

be able to provide estimated detection

levels and reporting levels which are

lower than, or at least equal to, the

allowable delisting level for each

constituent.

(7) Comment: Since the process

generating the sludge is extremely

stable, verification sampling should be

conducted on an annual, instead of

quarterly, basis. The requirement that

any process change be promptly

reported and the exclusion suspended

until EPA gives written approval that

the delisting can continue is an

adequate safeguard justifying the

decrease in sample event frequency.

EPA Response: Verification data

submitted in conjunction with past

delistings of this waste have shown

significant variation on a quarterly basis

over longer periods of time. Annual

sampling would not detect such

variations. Once enough verification

data are collected to support a statistical

analysis, a change in the frequency of

verification sampling and/or sampling

parameters may be considered.

(8) Comment: The final Federal

Register should make it clear that

assembly plants that manufacture light

trucks are also eligible for the project.

EPA Response: Today's notice

specifically defines eligible facilities as inclusive of manufacturers of light

trucks.

(9) Comment: The table of maximum

allowable levels iA the March 7, 2002

proposed rule contains errors in the

columns for vinyl chloride.

EPA Response: The error was caused

by a missing space or tab in the table.

The maximum allowable concentrations

proposed for 2,000 cubic yards of waste

should have been 115 mg/kg total and

0.00234 mg/L TCLP.

V. Final Rule Granting These Petitions

A. What Decision Is EPA Finalizing?

Today the EPA is finalizing an

exclusion to conditionally .delist an

annual volume of 2,000 cubic yards of

wastewater treatment plant sludge

generated at DTP from conversion

coating on aluminum.

On March 7, 2002, EPA proposed to

exclude or delist this wastewater

treatment sludge from the list of

hazardous wastes in 40 CFR 261.31 and

accepted public comment on the

proposed rule (67 FR 10341). EPA

considered all comments received, and

we believe that this waste should be

excluded from -hazardous waste control.

B. What Are the Terms of This

Exclusion?

DTP must dispose of the waste in a

lined subtitle D landfill which is

permitted, licensed, or registered by a

state to manage industrial solid waste.

DTP must obtain and analyze oil a

quarterly basis a representative sample

of the waste in accordance with the

waste analysis plan. DTP must verify

that the concentrations of the

constituents of concern do not exceed

the allowable levels set forth in this

exclusion.' The list of constituents for

verification is a subset of those initially

tested for and is based on the

occurrence of constituents at the

majority of facilities participating in the

expedited process to delist F019 and the

concentrations detected relative to the

allowable levels.

This exclusion applies only to a

maximum annual volume of 2,000 cubic

yards and is effective only if all

conditions contained in this rule are

satisfied.

C. When Is the Delisting Effective?

This rule is effective April 25, 2005.

The Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 amended section

3010 of RCRA to allow rules to become

effective in less than six months when

the regulated community does not need

the six-month period to come into

compliance. This rule reduces rather

than increases the existing requirements

and, therefore, is effective immediately

upon publication under the

Administrative Procedure Act, pursuant

to 5 U.S.C. 553(d).

21156

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21156 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

D. How Does This Action Affect the

States?

Today's exclusion is being issued

under the Federal RCRA delisting

program. Therefore, only states subject

to Federal RCRA delisting provisions

would be affected. This exclusion is not

effective in states which have received

authorization to make their own

delisting decisions. Also, the exclusion

may not be effective in states having a

dual system that includes Federal RCRA

requirements and their own

requirements. EPA allows states to

impose their own regulatory

requirements that are more stringent

than EPA's, under section 3009 of

RCRA. These more stringent

requirements may include a provision

that prohibits a federally issued

exclusion from taking effect in the state.

Because a dual system (that is, both

Federal (RCRA) and state (non-RCRA)

programs) may regulate a petitioner's

waste, we urge petitioners to contact the

state regulatory authority to establish

the status of their wastes under the state

law. If a participating facility transports

the petitioned waste to or manages the

waste in any state with delisting

authorization, it must obtain a delisting

from that state before it can manage the

waste as nonhazardous in the state.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order

Reviews

Under Executive Order 12866,

"Regulatory Planning and Review" (58

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this rule is

not of general applicability and

therefore is not a regulatory action

subject-to review by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB). 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.) because it

applies to a particular facility only.

Because this rule is of particular

applicability relating to a particular

facility, it is not subject to the regulatory

flexibility provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or

to sections 202, 204, and 205 of the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4). Because this

rule will affect only a particular facility,

it will not significantly or uniquely

affect small governments, as specified in

section 203 of UMRA.

Because this rule will affect only a

particular facility, this final rule does

not have federalism implications. It will

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, "Federalism,"

(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). Thus,

Executive Order 13132 does not apply

to this rule. Similarly, because this rule

will affect only a particular facility, this

final rule does not have tribal

implications, as specified in Executive

Order 13175, "Consultation and

Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments" (65 FR 67249, November

9, 2000). Thus, Executive Order 13175

-does not apply to this rule.

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 as defined in

Executive Order 12866, and because the

Agency does not have reason to believe

the environmental health or safety risks

addressed by this action present a

disproportionate risk to children. The

basis for this belief is that the Agency

used the DRAS program, which

considers health and safety risks to

infants and children, to calculate the

maximum allowable concentrations for

this rule.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13211, "Actions Concerning

Regulations That Significantly Affect

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use" (66

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is

not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order 12866.

This rule does not involve technical

standards; 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.

- As required by section 3 of E~ecutive

Order 12988, "Civil Justice Reform," (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct.

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S:C. 801 et seq., as added by the S/mall

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. Section 804

exempts from section 801 the following

types of rules (1) rules of particular

applicability; (2) rules relating to agency

management- or personnel; and (3) rules

of agency organization, procedure, or

practice that do not substantially affect

the rights or obligations of non-agency

parties 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is not

required to submit a rule report

regarding today's action under section

801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 261

Environmental protection, Hazardous

waste, Recycling, and Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: Sec. 3001() RCRA, 42 U.S.C.

6921(f).

Dated: April 14, 2005.

Bruce Sypniewski,

Acting Director, Waste, Pesticides and Toxics

Division.

m For the reasons set out in the preamble,

40 CFR part 261 is proposed to be

amended as follows:

PART 261-IDENTIFICATION AND

LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE

m 1. The authority citation for part 261

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921,

6922, and 6938.

* 2. In Table 1 of appendix IX of part 261

the following wastestreams are added in

alphabetical order by facility to read as

follows:

21157

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21157 2005
Federal Register/Vol. 70, No. 78/Monday, April 25, 2005/Rules and Regulations

Appendix IX to Part 261-Wastes

Excluded Under §§ 260.20 and 260.22

TABLE 1.-WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFICSOURCES

Facility Address Waste description

Ford Motor Company, Dearborn Truck As- Dearborn, Michigan ............

sembly Plant.

Wastewater treatment plant sludge, F00, that is generated by Ford

Motor Company at the Dearborn Truck.Asembly Plant at a maximum annual rate of 2,000 cubic yards per year. The sludge must

be disposed of in a lined landfill with leachate collection which is licensed, permitted, or otherwise authorized to accept the delisted

wastewater treatment sludge in accordance with 40 CFR part 258.

The exclusion becomes effective as of April 25, 2005.

1. Delisting Levels: (A) The concentrations in a TCLP extract of the

waste measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels

(mg/L): antimony-0.7; arsenic-0.3; barium--100; cadmium-0.5;

chromium-5; lead-5; nickel-90; selenium-i; thallium--0.3;

zinc-900; p-cresol-11; di-n-octyl phthlate-0.11; formaldehyde80; and pentachlorophenol-0.009. (B) The total concentration

measured in any sample may not exceed the following levels (mg/

kg): mercury-9; and formaldehyde-700. -

2. Quarterly Verification Testing: To verify that the waste does not exceed the specified delisting levels, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant

must collect and analyze one representative sample of the waste

on a quarterly basis.

3. Changes in Operating Conditions: Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant

must notify the EPA in writing if the manufacturing process, the

chemicals used in the manufacturing process, the treatment process, or the chemicals used in the treatment process change significantly. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant must handle wastes generated after the process change as hazardous until it has demonstrated that the wastes continue to meet the delisting levels and

that no new hazardous constituents listed in appendix VIII of part

261 have been introduced and it has received written approval from

EPA.

4. Data Submittals: Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant [Redln Off] must

submit the data obtained through verification testing or as required

by other conditions of this rule to both U.S. EPA Region 5, Waste

Management Branch (DW-8J), 77 W. Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL

60604 and MDEQ, Waste Management Division, Hazardous Waste

Program Section, at P.O. Box 30241, Lansing, Michigan 48909.

The quarterly verification data and certification of proper disposal

must be submitted annually upon the anniversary of the effective

date of this exclusion. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant must compile, summarize and maintain on site for a minimum of five years

records of operating conditions and analytical data. Dearborn Truck

Assembly Plant must make these records available for inspection.

All data must be accompanied by a signed copy of the certification

statement in 40 CFR 260.22(i)(12).

5. Reopener Language-(a) If, anytime after disposal of the delisted

waste, Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant possesses or is otherwise

made aware of any data (including but not limited to leachate data

or groundwater monitoring data) relevant to the delisted waste indicating that afiy constituent is at a level in the leachate higher than

the specified delisting level, or is in the groundwater at a concentration higher than the maximum allowable groundwater concentration

in paragraph (e), then Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant must report

such data, in writing, to the Regional Administrator within 10 days

of first possessing or being made aware of that data.

(b) Based on the information described in paragraph (a) and any

other information received from any source, the Regional Administrator will make a preliminary determination as to whether the reported information requires Agency action to protect human health

or the environment. Further action may include suspending, or revoking the exclusion, or other appropriate response necessary to

protect human health and the environment.

21158

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21158 2005
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 78 / Monday, April 25, 2005 / Rules and Regulations

TABLE 1.-WASTES EXCLUDED FROM NON-SPECIFIC SOURCES-Continued

Facility Address Waste description

(c) If the Regional Administrator determines that the reported information does require Agency action, the Regional Administrator will notify Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant in writing of the actions the Regional Administrator believes are necessary to protect human

health and the environment. The notice shall include a statement of

the proposed action and a statement providing Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant with an opportunity to present information as to why

the proposed Agency action is not necessary or to suggest an alternative action. Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant shall have 30 days

from the date of the Regional Administrator's notice to present the

information.

(d) If after 30 days the Dearborn Truck Assembly Plant presents no

further information, the Regional Administrator will issue a final written determination describing the Agency actions that are necessary

to protect human health or the environment. Any required action

described in the Regional Administrator's determination shall become effective immediately, unless the Regional Administrator provides otherwise.

(e) Maximum Allowable Groundwater Concentrations (gg/L): antimony-6; arsenic-5; barium-2,000; cadmium-5; chromium100; lead-i 5; nickel-800; selenium-50; thallium-2; tin-20,000;

zinc-11,000; p-Cresol-200; Di-n-octyl phthlate-1.3; Formaldehyde-1,400; and Pentachlorophenol-0.15.

[FR Doc. 05-8189 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management

Agency

44 CFR Part 64

(Docket No. FEMA-7776]

List of Communities Eligible for the

Sale of Flood Insurance

AGENCY: Federal Emergency

Management Agency, Emergency

Preparedness and Response Directorate,

Department of Homeland Security.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule identifies

communities participating in the

National Flood Insurance Program

(NFIP) and suspended from the NFIP.

These communities have applied to the

program and have agreed to enact

certain floodplain management

measures. The communities'

participation in the program authorizes

the sale of flood insurance to owners of

property located in the communities

listed.

DATES: Effective Dates: The dates listed

under the column headed Effective Date

of Eligibility..

ADDRESSES: Flood insurance policies for

property located in the communities

listed can be obtained from any licensed

property insurance agent or broker

serving the eligible community, or from

the NFIP at: (800) 638-6620.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael M. Grimm, Mitigation Division,

500 C Street, SW.; Room 412,

Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2878.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP

enables property owners to purchase

flood insurance which is generally not

otherwise available. In return,

communities agree to adopt and

administer local floodplain management

measures aimed at protecting lives and

new construction from future flooding.

Since the communities on the attached

list have recently entered the NFIP,

subsidized flood insurance is now

available for property in the community.

In addition, the Federal Emergency

Management Agency has identified the

special flood hazard areas in some of

these communities by publishing a'

Flood Hazard Boundary Map (FHBM) or

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The

date of the flood map, if one has been

published, is indicated in the fourth

column of the table. In the communities

listed where a flood map has been

published, Section 202 of the Flood.

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, as

amended, 42 U.S.C. 4016(a), requires

the purchase of flood insurance as a

condition of Federal or federally related

financial assistance for acquisition or

construction of buildings inthe special

flood hazard areas shown on the map.

The Administrator finds that delayed

effective dates would be contrary to the

public interest and that notice and

public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)

are impracticable and unnecessary.

National Environmental Policy Act.

This rule is categorically excluded from

the requirements of 44 CFR part 10,

Environmental Considerations. No

environmental impact assessment has

been prepared.

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The

Administrator certifies that this rule

will not have a significant economic

-impact on a substantial number of small

entities in accordance with the

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U. S. C. 601

et seq., because the rule creates no

additional burden, but lists those

communities eligible for the saleof

flood insurance.

Regulatory Classification. This final

rule is not a significant regulatory action

under the criteria of section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 of September 30,

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review,

58 FR 51735.

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule

does not involve any collection of

information for purposes of the

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.

Executive Order 12612, Federalism.

This rule involves no policies that have

federalism implications under Executive

Order 12612, Federalism, October 26,

1987, 3 CFR, 1987 Comp., p. 252.

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule meets the applicable

standards of section 2(b)(2) of Executive

Order 12778, October 25, 1991, 56 FR

55195, 3 CFR, 1991 Comp., p. 309.

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64

Flood insurance, Floodplains.

21159

HeinOnline -- 70 Fed. Reg. 21159 2005