Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67645

PROCESSES AUTHORIZED FOR THE TREATMENT OF WINE, JUICE, AND DISTILLING MATERIAL—Continued

Processes Use Reference or limitation 

* * * * * * * 

Metal reducing matrix sheet processing ........... To reduce the level of metals such as copper 

and iron in wine.

(1) The active ingredient, polyvinylimidazol, 

must not constitute more than 40% by 

weight of the sheet. 

(2) Use of the sheet must not significantly alter 

the color of the wine. 

Nanofiltration ..................................................... To reduce the level of volatile acidity in wine 

(used with ion exchange).

This process must use permeable membranes 

which are selective for molecules not greater than 150 molecular weight with 

transmembrane pressures of 250 psi or 

less. 

Osmotic transport 1 ........................................... For alcohol reduction ........................................ (1) Use must not alter the vinous character of 

the wine 

(2) None of the stripping solution may migrate 

into the wine. 

* * * * * * * 

Sulfide reducing matrix sheet processing ......... To reduce the level of sulfides in wine ............. (1) The active ingredient, polyvinylimidazol, 

must not constitute more than 40% by 

weight of the sheet. 

(2) Use of the sheet must not significantly alter 

the color of the wine. 

* * * * * * * 

Signed: October 1, 2004. 

Arthur J. Libertucci, 

Administrator. 

Approved: October 22, 2004. 

Timothy E. Skud, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and 

Tariff Policy).

[FR Doc. 04–25739 Filed 11–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA–295–0470a; FRL–7834–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Great Basin and 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the Great 

Basin Air Pollution Control District 

(GBAPCD) and Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we 

are approving local rules that are 

administrative and address changes for 

clarity and consistency.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

18, 2005 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

December 20, 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: Send comments to Andy 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901 

or e-mail to steckel.andrew@epa.gov, or 

submit comments at http://

www.regulations.gov.

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions, EPA’s technical 

support documents (TSDs), and public 

comments at our Region IX office during 

normal business hours by appointment. 

You may also see copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions by appointment 

at the following locations: 

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. 

Great Basin Unified Air Pollution 

Control District, 157 Short Street, Suite 

6, Bishop, CA 93514–3537. 

Ventura County Air Pollution Control 

District, 669 County Square Dr., 2nd Fl., 

Ventura, CA 93003–5417. 

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:

Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, allen.cynthia@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 is the Purpose of the Submitted 

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 dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB).

67646 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

GBAPCD ................................................................. 101 Definitions ............................................................... 09/24/03 11/04/03 

VCAPCD ................................................................. 2 Definitions ............................................................... 04/13/04 07/19/04 

On December 23, 2003 (GBAPCD) and 

August 10, 2004 (VCAPCD), these rule 

submittals were 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 versions of these rules 

into the SIP on the dates listed: 

GBAPCD Rule 101, April 13, 1982 and 

VCAPCD Rule 2, June 28, 1999. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rules Revisions? 

Great Basin Rule 101 is amended by 

adding a set of open burning definitions 

to comply with the legal requirements 

imposed on the District. The rule is also 

amended by adding two new definitions 

for Emergency Generators and Water 

Pumps, and Owner/Operator. 

Ventura County Rule 2 is amended by 

defining various terms that are used in 

multiple rules. The rule is also being 

amended by deleting some definitions 

that are no longer used in any of the 

District’s rules. 

The TSD has more information about 

these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the 

Revisions? 

These rules describe administrative 

provisions and definitions that support 

emission controls found in other local 

agency requirements. In combination 

with the other requirements, these rules 

must be enforceable (see section 110(a) 

of the Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). EPA policy that we used to help 

evaluate enforceability requirements 

consistently includes the Bluebook 

(‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988) and 

the Little Bluebook (‘‘Guidance 

Document for Correcting Common VOC 

& Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 

9, August 21, 2001). 

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 

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

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by December 20, 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. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this 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 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 223 / Friday, November 19, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67647

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, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds.

Dated: October 5, 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 paragraphs (c)(321)(i)(C) and 

(c)(332)(i)(B) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(321) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Great Basin Air Pollution Control 

District. 

(1) Rule 101, adopted on September 

24, 2003.

* * * * *

(332) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) Ventura County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 2, adopted on October 22, 

1968, and amended on April 13, 2004.

[FR Doc. 04–25625 Filed 11–18–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 268 

[RCRA–2004–0009; FRL–7839–3] 

Land Disposal Restrictions: SiteSpecific Treatment Standard Variance 

for Selenium Waste for Chemical 

Waste Management, Chemical 

Services, LLC

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA or Agency) is today 

granting a site-specific treatment 

standard variance from the Land 

Disposal Restrictions (LDR) treatment 

standards for a selenium-bearing 

hazardous waste generated by the glass 

manufacturing industry. EPA is granting 

this variance because the chemical 

properties of the waste differ 

significantly from those of the waste 

used to establish the current LDR 

treatment standard for selenium (5.7 

mg/L, as measured by the Toxicity 

Characteristic Leaching Procedure 

(TCLP)), and the petition has adequately 

demonstrated that the waste cannot be 

treated to meet this treatment standard. 

EPA is granting this variance to CWM 

Chemical Services LLC (CWM (Model 

City, NY)) to stabilize a seleniumbearing hazardous waste generated by 

Guardian Industries Corp. (Guardian) at 

their RCRA permitted facility in Model 

City, New York. With promulgation of 

this final rule, CWM may treat the 

Guardian waste to an alternate treatment 

standard of 28 mg/L, as measured by the 

TCLP. CWM (Model City, NY) may 

dispose of the treated waste in a RCRA 

Subtitle C landfill, provided they meet 

the applicable LDR treatment standard 

for any other hazardous constituents in 

the waste. 

EPA is also modifying the existing 

alternative treatment standard for the 

Guardian selenium waste that EPA had 

previously granted to Heritage 

Environmental Services LLC (69 FR 

6567, February 11, 2004) to be 

consistent with the levels that CWM has 

demonstrated as best demonstrated 

achievable technology (BDAT) for this 

selenium waste.

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

January 3, 2005 without further notice, 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by December 20, 2004. If we receive 

such comment, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register

informing the public that this rule will 

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. RCRA–2004–0009. All documents 

in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET 

index at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.

Correspondence to the docket should be 

addressed to: EPA Docket Center, 

OSWER Docket (5305T), 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave NW., Washington, DC 

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information, contact the RCRA 

Call Center at (800) 424–9346 or TDD 

(800) 553–7672 (hearing impaired). In 

the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, 

call (703) 412–9810 or TDD (703) 412–

3323. For more detailed information on 

specific aspects of this rulemaking, 

contact Juan Parra at (703) 308–0478 or 

parra.juan@epa.gov, Office of Solid 

Waste (MC 5302 W), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., Washington, DC 

20460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because we view it as a 

noncontroversial action. We anticipate 

no significant adverse comments, 

because, to our knowledge, no new 

treatment options have become 

available to treat this high-concentration 

selenium waste more effectively. Having 

said this, in the ‘‘Proposed Rules’’

section of today’s Federal Register

publication, we are publishing a 

separate document that could serve as a 

proposal to grant a site-specific 

treatment standard variance to CWM 

(Model City, NY), if significant adverse 

comments are filed. See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section in 

that notice on how to submit comments. 

This direct final rule will be effective 

on January 3, 2005 without further 

notice unless we receive adverse 

comment on the proposed rule by 

December 20, 2004. If we receive 

adverse comment on the direct final 

rule, we will withdraw the direct final 

action and the treatment standard 

variance for CWM (Model City, NY). We 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. We will not institute a 

second comment period on this action.