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

62590 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

requirements of the Clean Air Act 

(CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 27, 2004 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comment by November 26, 

2004. If EPA receives such comments, it 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by MD170–3113 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal:

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: morris.makeba@epa.gov.

C. Mail: Makeba Morris, Chief, Air 

Quality Planning Branch, Mailcode 

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. MD170–3113. EPA’s 

policy is that all comments received 

will be included in the public docket 

without change, including any personal 

information provided, unless the 

comment includes information claimed 

to be Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. Do 

not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through regulations.gov or email. The Federal regulations.gov 

website is an ‘‘anonymous access’’

system, which means EPA will not 

know your identity or contact 

information unless you provide it in the 

body of your comment. If you send an 

e-mail comment directly to EPA without 

going through regulations.gov, your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. 

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; the 

Air and Radiation Docket and 

Information Center, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Room B108, Washington, 

DC 20460; and Maryland Department of 

the Environment (MDE), 1800 

Washington Boulevard, Suite 705, 

Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose 

Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at 

quinto.rose@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 12, 2004, the State of 

Maryland submitted a formal revision to 

its State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 

SIP revision consists of amendments to 

COMAR 26.11.19.17—Control of VOC 

Emissions from Yeast Manufacturing. 

Yeast is manufactured in large reaction 

vessels referred to as fermenters. In 

Maryland, most of the yeast 

manufactured is baker’s or nutritional 

yeast. The yeast is manufactured in 

batches with an average fermenting time 

of 18 hours for each batch. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The amendments to COMAR 

26.11.19.17 add the following 

definitions: (a) ‘‘nutritional yeast’’

means a yeast that becomes an 

ingredient in dough for bread or any 

other yeast-raised baked product; or a 

nutritional food additive intended for 

consumption by humans; and (b) 

‘‘specialty yeast’’ means a yeast that is 

used in the production of beer, wine or 

alcoholic beverages or in the production 

of ethanol. The amendment also limits 

the production of specialty yeast to less 

than one percent by weight of the total 

annual yeast production excluding 

specialty yeast batches that meet the 

emission limits for nutritional yeast. 

Compliance with this amendment shall 

be achieved beginning July 1, 2004 and 

determined with the use of continuous 

emission monitors. In addition, the 

amendment removed the requirement to 

conduct periodic stack tests because the 

VOC emissions are now determined by 

continuous monitors. 

The standards in the amended 

regulation shall be met for at least 98 

percent of all nutritional yeast batches 

in each 12-month period. The amended 

regulation also requires semi-annual 

reports submitted to MDE by the end of 

the month following each 6-month 

period. The semi-annual reports shall 

include: (a) A summary of the number 

of batches for each month and 

calculations showing the percent of 

batches that failed to meet the VOC 

standards for each month; (b) 

calculations showing the percent of 

batches that failed to meet the VOC 

standards during the 6-month period; 

and (c) calculations showing the percent 

of batches, by fermenter, that were not 

monitored during the 6-month period. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving the amendments to 

COMAR 26.11.19.17, ‘‘Control of VOC 

Emissions from Yeast Manufacturing,’’

submitted by MDE on July 12, 2004. 

Implementation of these amendments 

will result in the reduction of VOC 

emissions from yeast manufacturing 

facilities.

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on December 27, 2004 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by November 26, 

2004. If EPA receives adverse comment, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that the rule will not take effect. 

EPA will address all public comments 

in a subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 207 / Wednesday, October 27, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 62591

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.). 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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. This rule is not a 

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 

804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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, pertaining to the 

amendments to control VOC emissions 

from yeast manufacturing facilities in 

Maryland, 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, 

Incorporation by reference, Ozone, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds.

Dated: September 20, 2004. 

Thomas C. Voltaggio, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

■ 40 CFR part 52 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 V—Maryland

■ 2. Section 52.1070 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(189) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.1070 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(189) Revisions to the Maryland 

Regulations on the Control of Volatile 

Organic Compound Emissions from 

Yeast Manufacturing submitted on July 

12, 2004 by the Maryland Department of 

the Environment (MDE): 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Letter of July 12, 2004 from the 

Maryland Department of the 

Environment transmitting the 

amendments to the control of VOC from 

yeast manufacturing. 

(B) The following revisions to 

COMAR 26.11.19.17, Control of VOC 

Emissions from Yeast Manufacturing 

with an effective date of June 21, 2004. 

(1) Addition of paragraphs .17A(3) 

and .17A(4) of existing paragraphs 

.17A(3) and .17A(4) to .17A(5) and 

.17A(6) respectively. 

(2) Addition of paragraph .17B(2), 

replacing existing paragraph .17B(2). 

(3) Revisions to paragraphs .17B(3), 

.17C(2), .17C(3), .17D (introductory 

sentence), .17D(1), and .17D(2). 

(4) Addition of paragraph .17E; 

renumbering of existing paragraph .17E 

to .17F. 

(5) Addition of paragraphs .17F(1) and 

.17F(2), replacing existing paragraphs 

.17E(1) and .17E(2). 

(ii) Additional Material.—Remainder 

of the State submittal pertaining to the 

revisions listed in paragraph (c)(191)(i) 

of this section.

[FR Doc. 04–23948 Filed 10–26–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[R03–OAR–2004–WV–0001; FRL–7821–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; West 

Virginia; Determination of Attainment 

and Redesignation of the City of 

Weirton PM10 Nonattainment Area to 

Attainment and Approval of the 

Maintenance Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the 

City of Weirton PM10 nonattainment 

area (the Weirton area) has attained the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for PM10. This determination 

is based on three years of complete, 

quality-assured, ambient air quality 

monitoring data for the years 2000–2002 

which demonstrate that the NAAQS for 

PM10 has been attained in the area. On 

the basis of this determination, EPA is 

also determining that certain attainment 

demonstration requirements along with 

other related requirements of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA), are no applicable to the 

Weirton area. EPA is also approving the