67058 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

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. The Administrator of the Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs 

has not designated it 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 

We have analyzed this rule under 

Commandant Instruction M16475.1D, 

which guides the Coast Guard in 

complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have concluded that there are no factors 

in this case that would limit the use of 

a categorical exclusion under section 

2.B.2 of the Instruction. Therefore, this 

rule is categorically excluded, under 

figure 2–1, paragraph (32)(e), of the 

Instruction, from further environmental 

documentation. It has been determined 

that this final rule does not significantly 

impact the environment.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

Regulations

■ For the reasons set out in the preamble, 

the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 

as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE 

OPERATION REGULATIONS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 117 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1; 33 

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued 

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106 

Stat. 5039.

■ 2. Revise § 117.586 to read as follows:

§ 117.586 Annisquam River and Blynman 

Canal. 

The draw of the Blynman (SR127) 

Bridge shall open on signal, except that, 

from noon to 6 p.m. on Thanksgiving 

Day, 6 p.m. on December 24 to midnight 

on December 25, and from 6 p.m. on 

December 31 to midnight on January 1, 

the draw shall open on signal if at least 

a two-hour advance notice is given by 

calling the number posted at the bridge.

■ 3. Section 117.595 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 117.595 Danvers River.

* * * * *

(c) The Kernwood Bridge, at mile 1.0, 

shall operate as follows: 

(1) From May 1 through September 

30, midnight to 5 a.m., and from 

October 1 through April 30, 7 p.m. to 5 

a.m., draw shall open on signal after at 

least a one-hour advance notice is given 

by calling the number posted at the 

bridge. 

(2) From noon to 6 p.m. on 

Thanksgiving Day and all day on 

Christmas and New Years Day, the draw 

shall open on signal after at least a onehour advance notice is given by calling 

the number posted at the bridge.

■ 4. Section 117.618 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 117.618 Saugus River.

* * * * *

(c) The Fox Hill (SR107) Bridge, at 

mile 2.5, shall operate as follows: 

(1) The draw shall open on signal, 

except that, from October 1 through May 

31, from 7 p.m. to 5 a.m., the draw shall 

open after at least a one-hour advance 

notice is given by calling the number 

posted at the bridge. 

(2) From noon to 6 p.m. on 

Thanksgiving Day, and all day on 

Christmas, and New Years Day, the 

draw shall open on signal after at least 

a one-hour advance notice is given by 

calling the number posted at the bridge.

■ 5. Section 117.621 is amended by 

revising paragraph (c) to read as follows:

§ 117.621 Fore River.

* * * * *

(c) From noon to 6 p.m. on 

Thanksgiving Day, from 6 p.m. on 

December 24 to midnight on December 

25, and from 6 p.m. on December 31 to 

midnight on January 1, the draw shall 

open on signal after at least a two-hour 

advance notice is given by calling the 

number posted at the bridge.

Dated: November 4, 2004. 

David P. Pekoske, 

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, 

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–25412 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 309–0468a; FRL–7834–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Imperial County 

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 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District (ICAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revisions concern the 

emission of particulate matter (PM–10) 

and sulfur compounds into the 

atmosphere from industrial processes. 

We are approving local rules that 

administer regulations and regulate 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

18, 2005, without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

December 16, 2004. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail or e-mail comments to 

Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, or email to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 

submit comments at http://

www.regulations.gov. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted rule revisions and EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) at 

our Region IX office during normal 

business hours. You may also see copies 

of the submitted rule revisions and TSD 

at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air 

Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington DC 20460. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67059

California Air Resources Board, 

Stationary Source Division, Rule 

Evaluation Section, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, 

Sacramento, CA 95814. 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District, 150 South 9th Street, El 

Centro, CA 92243.

A copy of the rules 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 rules that were submitted 

to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al 

Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region IX, (415) 947–4118 or 

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 Rule 

Revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? 

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria?

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rules Did the State Submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules we are 

approving with the date that they were 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Revised Submitted 

ICAPCD ........................................ 403 General Limitations on the Discharge of Air Contaminants ............. 05/18/04 07/19/04

ICAPCD ........................................ 405 Sulfur Compounds Emissions Standards, Limitations and Prohibitions.05/18/04 07/19/04

On August 10, 2004, the submittal of 

ICAPCD Rules 403 and 405 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 finalized a limited approval/

limited disapproval of a previous 

version of ICAPCD Rule 403 on March 

24, 2003 (68 FR 14161). We finalized a 

limited approval/limited disapproval of 

a previous version of ICAPCD Rule 405 

on February 7, 2002 (67 FR 5727). There 

were sanction implications on our 

action on Rule 403 but not on Rule 405. 

C. What Are the Purposes of the 

Submitted Rule Revisions? 

PM–10 and sulfur compounds harm 

human health and the environment. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

PM–10 and sulfur oxide emissions. 

The purposes of the revisions to Rule 

403 are as follows: 

• To limit the duration of the 

exemption from emission standards for 

the startup or shutdown period and 

when changing conditions to bring the 

process up to operating levels. 

• To require periodic demonstrations 

of compliance with source tests of PM–

10 emissions. 

• To require a 5-year records 

retention period. The purpose of the 

revisions to Rule 405 are as follows: 

• To allow demonstration of 

compliance with sulfur compound 

emissions by using the supplier’s 

analysis of sulfur content of the fuel. 

• To require 2-year records retention 

period, except for a 5-year retention 

period for a major source. 

• To update the issue date of ASTM 

test procedures. 

The revisions described above correct 

the deficiencies cited in the previous 

limited approval/limited disapprovals 

of Rules 403 and 405. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? 

Generally, PM–10 SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(1) and 

193). 

Sections 172(c)(1) and 189(a) of the 

CAA require moderate PM–10 

nonattainment areas with significant 

PM–10 sources to adopt reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

including reasonably available control 

technology (RACT). RACM/RACT is not 

required for source categories that are 

not significant (de minimis) and do not 

have major sources. See Addendum to 

the General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, 59 FR 

41998 (August 16, 1994). Based on the 

latest emissions inventory data 

contained in Imperial County PM–10 

State Implementation Plan Attainment 

Demonstration, Draft Report (July 2001), 

Imperial County has at least three major 

PM sources: Santa Fe Pacific Gold Corp 

(541 tpy), U.S. Gypsum (Plaster City) 

(156 tpy), and American Girl Mine (136 

tpy). Therefore, we conclude that 

submitted rule 403 must meet RACM/

RACT in the absence of a demonstration 

by the State that these major sources do 

not contribute significantly to PM–10 

levels which exceed the PM–10 NAAQS 

in the area. We also note that ICAPCD’s 

Draft Report, which formed a basis for 

our 2001 attainment finding, refers to 

Rule 403 as one of the controls that 

should fulfill RACM/RACT for 

stationary sources in Imperial County 

(see pages 37–38 of that report). 

The ICAPCD is in attainment for 

sulfur oxides, therefore there is no 

RACT requirement for Rule 405.

The following guidance documents 

were used for reference: 

• Requirements for Preparation, 

Adoption, and Submittal of 

Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 

CFR part 51. 

• General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 

13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992). 

• PM–10 Guideline Document

(EPA–452/R–93–008). 

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

We believe the rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, 

and fulfilling RACM/RACT. 

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 Rules 

403 and 405 because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing the 

approval without proposing it in 

advance. However, in the Proposed 

Rules section of this Federal Register, 

67060 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 220 / Tuesday, November 16, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

we are simultaneously proposing 

approval of the same submitted rules. If 

we receive adverse comments by 

December 16, 2004, 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 January 18, 2005. This 

will incorporate these rules into the 

federally-enforceable SIP and will 

permanently terminate all sanction and 

FIP implications of our limited 

disapproval of a previous version of 

Rule 403. 

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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have Federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

Federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

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

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

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

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

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

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

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

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 18, 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 requirements, Sulfur 

oxides.

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

Dated: October 13, 2004. 

Keith Takata, 

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)(332) to read as 

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(332) Amended regulations for the 

following APCDs were submitted on 

July 19, 2004, by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 403, adopted on November 

19, 1985 and revised on May 18, 2004 

and Rule 405, adopted prior to 

November 4, 1977 and revised on May 

18, 2004.

[FR Doc. 04–25300 Filed 11–15–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 309–0468c; FRL–7834–5] 

Interim Final Determination To Stay 

Sanctions, Imperial County Air 

Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).