62588 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

determinations, in the form of operating 

permits: 

(B) Operating permit (OP): 

(1) Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 

Station 321, Susquehanna County, OP–

58–0001A, effective date April 16, 1999. 

(2) Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, 

Station 219, Mercer County, OP–43–

0272, effective date April 7, 1998. 

(ii) Additional Material—Additional 

materials submitted by the 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 

support of and pertaining to the RACT 

determinations for the sources listed in 

paragraph (c)(218)(i) of this section.

[FR Doc. 04–23940 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA284–0462; FRL–7811–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Bay Area Air 

Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions were proposed in 

the Federal Register on October 20, 

2003 and concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

solvents and surface cleaning operations 

when coating large appliances, metal 

furniture, and miscellaneous metal 

parts. 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 

November 26, 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 

and, 

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 

939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, CA 94109.

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 

website 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 

(415) 947–4111, or via email at 

wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On October 30, 2003 (68 FR 61782), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rules into the California SIP.

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

BAAQMD ...................................... 8–14 Surface Preparation and Coating of Large Appliances and Metal 

Furniture.

10/16/02 04/01/03 

BAAQMD ...................................... 8–19 Surface Preparation and Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 

Products.

10/16/02 04/01/03 

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 comments from the 

following parties. 

1. Adrienne Bloch, Communities for a 

Better Environment (CBE); letter and 

electronic mail dated November 21, 

2003. 

2. Marc Chytilo, Transportation 

Solutions Defense and Education Fund 

(TRANSDEF); co-signee same letter 

referenced above. The comments and 

our responses are summarized below. 

Comment: EPA should disapprove or 

defer action on BAAQMD Rules 8–14 

and 8–19 because on July 23, 2003 a 

State Court ruled that the BAAQMD did 

not follow mandated state law in 

adopting the 2001 SIP stationary source 

control measure SS–13 (Rules 8–14 and 

8–19 in a different form). The State 

Court found that the BAAQMD’s initial 

study and negative declarations under 

the California Environmental Quality 

Act (CEQA) for the 2001 Ozone 

Attainment Plan (OAP), including SS–

13, were inadequate. Given that the 

BAAQMD has not met CEQA’s 

substantive and procedural 

requirements, the commenters assert 

that the BAAQMD has neither legal 

authority to adopt Rules 8–14 and 8–19, 

nor sufficient procedural evidence that 

they have followed State law in 

adopting and submitting Rules 8–14 and 

8–19. Consequently, EPA should reject 

the rule revisions concerning Rules 8–

14 and 8–19 because they violate the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) at Section 

110(a)(2)(E) and EPA regulations at 40 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 

51, Appendix V.

The CAA Section 110(a)(2)(E) does 

not allow EPA to approve a SIP revision 

unless the State can assure that it has 

authority under state and local law to 

carry out the SIP revision. CFR 40 Part 

51, Appendix V requires that a State 

provide evidence of legal authority to 

adopt a SIP revision and show that the 

State followed all of its procedural 

requirements. 

EPA Response: In subsequent actions, 

BAAQMD and the commenters, CBE 

and TRANSDEF, appealed the July 23, 

2003 State Court decision. In April 

2004, BAAQMD, CBE, and TRANSDEF 

entered into a settlement agreement that 

vacated the July 23, 2003 State Court 

judgement. As a part of the settlement, 

CBE and TRANSDEF agreed to dismiss 

their lawsuit against BAAQMD that 

challenged the 2001 OAP on CEQA and 

other grounds and relinquish all claims 

associated with the lawsuit. 

Consequently, we are left with no 

substantive basis requiring that we 

adjudicate CBE and TRANSDEF’s claim 

that we should not act on Rules 8–14 

and 8–19 as submitted. 

However, it should be noted that as 

part of BAAQMD’s September 2002 

adoption action on Rules 8–14 and 8–

19, the district published its ‘‘Initial 

Study/Negative Declaration for 

Amendments to the BAAQMD 

Regulation 8, Rules 4, 14, 19, 31, and 43 

(Surface Coating Rules.)’’ This 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62589

document provided the basis for the 

BAAQMD Board’s negative declaration 

within the district’s resolution of 

adoption and for satisfying its CEQA 

obligations. In turn, this negative 

declaration and other submittal 

documents provided the basis for EPA’s 

May 13, 2003 completeness finding on 

Rules 8–14 and 8–19. 

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 

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. 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 December 27, 

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: August 6, 2004. 

Laura Yoshii, 

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)(315)(i)(A)(3) to 

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(315) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(A) * * * 

(3) Rule 8–14, adopted on March 7, 

1979 and amended on October 16, 2002; 

and Rule 8–19, adopted on January 9, 

1980 and amended on October 16, 2002.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–23950 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[MD170–3113a; FRL–7819–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Maryland; Control of VOC Emissions 

from Yeast Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Maryland State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The SIP revisions pertain to the 

amendments of a regulation that control 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from yeast manufacturing 

facilities. EPA is approving these 

revisions in accordance with the