43518 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian tribes. 

Energy Effects 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. We have 

determined that it is not a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ under that order because 

it is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

under Executive Order 12866 and is not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy. It has not been designated by the 

Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs as a 

significant energy action. Therefore, it 

does not require a Statement of Energy 

Effects under Executive Order 13211. 

Technical Standards 

The National Technology Transfer 

and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 

U.S.C. 272 note) directs agencies to use 

voluntary consensus standards in their 

regulatory activities unless the agency 

provides Congress, through the Office of 

Management and Budget, with an 

explanation of why using these 

standards would be inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

Voluntary consensus standards are 

technical standards (e.g., specifications 

of materials, performance, design, or 

operation; test methods; sampling 

procedures; and related management 

systems practices) that are developed or 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This rule does not use technical 

standards. Therefore, we did not 

consider the use of voluntary consensus 

standards. 

Environment 

The Coast Guard considered the 

environmental impact of this rule and 

concluded that, under figure 2–1, 

paragraph (34)(h) of Commandant 

Instruction M16475.1C, this rule is 

categorically excluded from further 

environmental documentation.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100 

Marine safety, Navigation (water), 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Waterways.

■ For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 

CFR part 100 as follows:

PART 100—SAFETY OF LIFE ON 

NAVIGABLE WATERS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 100 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

■ 2. From 6 a.m. on July 23, 2004, until 

9 p.m. on July 25, 2004, temporarily 

suspend 33 CFR 100.1303 and add 

temporary § 100.T13–001 to read as 

follows:

§ 100.T13–001 Special Local Regulations; 

Annual Kennewick, Washington, Columbia 

Unlimited Hydroplane Races.

(a) This section is effective from 6 

a.m. on July 23, until 9 p.m. on July 25, 

2004. 

(b) This section will be enforced from 

6 a.m. until 9 p.m. each day it is 

effective, unless sooner cancelled by the 

Patrol Commander. 

(c) This section restricts general 

navigation and anchorage during the 

hours it is enforced, on all waters of the 

Columbia River bounded by two lines 

drawn shore to shore; the first line 

running between position 46°14′50′′ N, 

119°10′23′′ W and position 46°13′39′′ N, 

119°10′34′′ W; and the second line 

running between position 46°13′36′′ N, 

119°07′38′′ W and position 46°13′10′′ N, 

119°07′49′′ W. [Datum: NAD 83]. Entry 

into this zone is a violation of 

regulations and may result in penalty 

action under the provisions of 33 CFR 

100.35. 

(d) When deemed appropriate, the 

Coast Guard may establish a patrol 

consisting of active and auxiliary Coast 

Guard personnel and vessels in the area 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. The patrol shall be under the 

direction of a Coast Guard officer or 

petty officer designated as Coast Guard 

Patrol Commander. The Patrol 

Commander is empowered to forbid and 

control the movement of vessels in the 

area described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(e) The Patrol Commander may 

authorize vessels to be underway in the 

area described in paragraph (c) of this 

section during the hours this regulation 

is enforced. All vessels permitted to be 

underway in the controlled area (other 

than racing or official vessels) shall do 

so only at speeds which will create 

minimum wake consistent with 

maintaining steerageway, and not to 

exceed seven (7) miles per hour. This 

speed limit may be adjusted at the 

discretion of the Patrol Commander to 

enhance the level of safety. 

(f) A succession of sharp, short signals 

by whistle, siren, or horn from vessels 

patrolling the area under the direction 

of the U.S. Coast Guard Patrol 

Commander shall serve as a signal to 

stop. Vessels signaled shall stop and 

shall comply with the orders of the 

patrol vessel personnel; failure to do so 

may result in expulsion from the area, 

citation for failure to comply, or both.

Dated: July 14, 2004. 

Jeffrey M. Garrett, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard District 

Thirteen Commander.

[FR Doc. 04–16645 Filed 7–19–04; 10:58 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA287–0458; FRL–7781–9] 

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 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions were 

proposed in the Federal Register on 

March 22, 2004 and concern volatile 

organic compound (VOC) and ammonia 

(NH3) emissions from composting and 

related activities. 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 August 

20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of 

the administrative record for this action 

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal 

business hours by appointment. You 

can inspect copies of the submitted SIP 

revisions by appointment at the 

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 

94105–3901. 

Air and Radiation Docket and Information 

Center, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Room B–102, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), 

Washington, DC 20460. 

California Air Resources Board, Stationary 

Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 

1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond 

Bar, CA 91765–4182.

A copy of the rule may also be 

available via the Internet at http://

www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm.

Please be advised that this is not an EPA 

Web site and may not contain the same 

version of the rule that was submitted 

to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 43519

either (415) 947–4111, or 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On March 22, 2004 (69 FR 13272 and 

69 FR 13225), EPA proposed to approve 

the following rules into the California 

SIP.

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ................................. 1133 Composting and Related Operations—General Administrative 

Requirements.

01/10/03 06/05/03 

SCAQMD ................................. 1133.1 Chipping and Grinding Activities ............................................... 01/10/03 06/05/03 

SCAQMD ................................. 1133.2 Emission Reductions From Co-Composting Operations .......... 01/10/03 06/05/03 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received a comment from the 

following party. 

1. Bob Engel; electronic mail dated 

April 14, 2004. The comment is 

summarized below. 

Comment: Mr. Engel opposed our 

approval action because the SCAQMD 

rules did not consider the cumulative 

good composting does for the 

environment. He then cited several of 

EPA’s internet Web sites related to 

waste reduction, recycling, and their 

relationship to greenhouse gases. 

Finally, Mr. Engel suggested that EPA 

did not consider the effect of no action 

by SCAQMD. 

EPA Response: To review, SCAQMD 

1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2 are concerned 

with reducing VOC and NH3 emissions 

from composting that contribute to 

ground-level ozone and secondary 

particulate matter. Mr. Engel’s 

comments do not address directly these 

primary objectives of Rules 1133, 

1133.1, and 1133.2. Instead, the 

comments ask EPA to consider not 

approving the rules because of their 

supposed detrimental effect on the 

composting industry. In the discussion 

that follows, we review briefly 

SCAQMD supporting documents 

concerning these issues. 

As part of their rule development 

effort, SCAQMD did a technology 

review of the composting industry and 

assessed the cost-effectiveness of Rules 

1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2. Depending on 

the compliance scenario chosen, the 

combined cost-effectiveness per ton of 

VOC and NH3 reduced ranged from 

$6487 to $15,373; figures relatively 

consistent with other SCAQMD 

regulations. SCAQMD estimated that 

these compliance costs ranged from 

$0.004 to $0.25 per month when passed 

on to air basin households. 

In December 2002, SCAQMD did a 

Final Environmental Assessment (EA) 

as part of their compliance with the 

California Environmental Quality Act 

(CEQA). SCAQMD’s determined that 

Rules 1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2 had no 

significant environmental impacts 

requiring mitigation. The EA reviewed 

potential impacts on air quality, energy, 

water quality, geology, and solid/

hazardous waste, as well as, other 

required topics. Regarding impacts on 

solid waste disposal, SCAQMD found 

that composting facilities are neither 

expected to close, nor to divert 

composting feedstock to landfills due to 

Rules 1133, 1133.1, and 1133.2. 

In sum, the rules’ compliance costs 

are consistent with other SCAQMD 

regulations and the rules are predicted 

to have no negative environmental 

impacts across multiple issue areas 

including solid waste disposal. Given 

these conclusions and the air quality 

improvement expected due to VOC and 

NH3 emission reductions, we assert that 

that the rules most likely result in a net 

benefit to the environment beyond that 

suggested by a no action alternative.

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rules comply with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving these rules 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

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 

43520 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 139 / Wednesday, July 21, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 20, 

2004. 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, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: June 17, 2004. 

Nancy Lindsay, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F—California

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(316)(i)(D) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(316) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(D) South Coast Air Quality 

Management District. 

(1) Rule 1133 adopted on January 10, 

2003; Rule 1133.1 adopted on January 

10, 2003; and, Rule 1133.2 adopted on 

January 10, 2003.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–16570 Filed 7–20–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[DC–2025, MD–3064, VA–5052; DC052–7007, 

MD143–3102, VA129–5065; FRC–7790–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Maryland; Virginia; 

Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; technical 

amendment. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to 

remove codification of certain State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) approvals 

vacated by United States Court of 

Appeals for the District of Columbia 

Circuit and remanded to EPA. EPA is 

also concurrently vacating an indefinite 

stay, which EPA had issued pending 

completion of judicial review, of a 

conditional approval promulgated on 

April 17, 2003. These revisions relate to 

the 1-hour ozone attainment 

demonstration and the 1996–1999 rateof-progress (ROP) plans for the 

Metropolitan Washington DC ozone 

nonattainment area (the Washington 

area) submitted by the District of 

Columbia’s Department of Health (DoH), 

by the Maryland Department of the 

Environment (MDE) and by the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality 

(VADEQ), including enforceable 

commitments submitted by the District 

of Columbia, Virginia and Maryland as 

part of the 1-hour attainment 

demonstration. EPA is correcting the 

codification of the approval of these 

revisions in accordance with the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act.

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

20, 2004. 

In addition, EPA is vacating the stay 

on 40 CFR 52.473, 52.1072(e) and 

52.2450(b), effective August 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents 

relevant to this action are available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christopher Cripps, (215) 814–2179, or 

by e-mail at cripps.christopher@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Previous Action Had Been 

Taken on These SIP Revisions? 

A. January 3, 2001 Approval 

On January 3, 2001 (66 FR 586), the 

EPA approved the 1996–1999 ROP 

plans, an attainment date extension and 

the attainment demonstrations for the 

Washington, DC area. On July 2, 2002, 

the United States Courts of Appeals for 

the District of Columbia Circuit (the 

Circuit Court) vacated our January 3, 

2001, approval of the attainment 

demonstration, 1996–1999 ROP plan 

and extension of the attainment date. 

See Sierra Club v. Whitman, 294 F.3d 

155, 163 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 

B. April 17, 2003 Conditional Approval 

In response to the Circuit Court’s July 

2002 ruling, on January 24, 2003, the 

EPA published a final action (68 FR 

3410) determining that the Washington 

area failed to attain the serious ozone 

nonattainment deadline of November 

15, 1999, and reclassified the 

Washington area to severe ozone 

nonattainment by operation of law. 

On February 3, 2003, the EPA 

published a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (68 FR 5246) regarding the 

SIP revisions covered by the vacated 

January 3, 2001, final rule. On April 17, 

2003 (68 FR 19106), EPA conditionally 

approved these same SIP revisions. On 

February 3, 2004, the Circuit Court 

issued an opinion to vacate our 

conditional approval of the attainment 

demonstration, and ROP plan. See 

Sierra Club v. EPA, 356 F.3d at 302–04 

(D.C. Cir. 2004). 

On March 19, 2004, the Sierra Club 

filed a ‘‘Petition for Panel Rehearing’’

requesting the Circuit Court to 

reconsider one issue addressed in a 

footnote of the opinion. This issue was