Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 241 

(5) Reasons for exemption. EPA 41 is 

exempted from the above provisions of 

the PA for the following reasons: 

(i) 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3) requires an 

agency to make the accounting of each 

disclosure of records available to the 

individual named in the record at his 

request. These accountings must state 

the date, nature, and purpose of each 

disclosure of a record and the name and 

address of the recipient. Making such an 

accounting could result in the release of 

properly classified information, which 

would compromise the national defense 

or disrupt foreign policy. 

(ii) 5 U.S.C. 552a(d) requires an 

agency to permit an individual to gain 

access to records pertaining to him or 

her, to request amendment to such 

records, to request a review of an agency 

decision not to amend such records, and 

to contest the information contained in 

such records. Granting such access 

could cause the release of properly 

classified information, which would 

compromise the national defense or 

disrupt foreign policy. 

(iii) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(1) requires each 

agency to maintain in its records only 

such information about an individual as 

is relevant and necessary to accomplish 

a purpose of the agency required by 

statute or by Executive order of the 

President. The application of this 

provision could impair personnel 

security investigations which use 

properly classified information, because 

it is not always possible to know the 

relevance or necessity of specific 

information in the early stages of an 

investigation. Relevance and necessity 

are often questions of judgment and 

timing, and it is only after the 

information is evaluated that the 

relevance and necessity of such 

information can be established. 

(iv) 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) (G) and (H) 

require an agency to publish a Federal 

Register notice concerning its 

procedures for notifying an individual 

upon request if the system of records 

contains a record pertaining to him or 

her, how to gain access to such a record, 

and how to contest its content. Since 

EPA is claiming that this system of 

records is exempt from subsection (f) of 

the Act, concerning agency rules, and 

subsection (d) of the Act, concerning 

access to records, these requirements are 

inapplicable and are exempted to the 

extent that this system of records is 

exempted from subsections (f) and (d) of 

the Act. Although EPA is claiming 

exemption from these requirements, 

EPA has published such a notice 

concerning its notification, access, and 

contest procedures because, under 

certain circumstances, EPA might 

decide it is appropriate for an 

individual to have access to all or a 

portion of his records in this system of 

records. 

(v) 5 U.S.C. 552a(f)(1) requires an 

agency to promulgate rules which shall 

establish procedures whereby an 

individual can be notified in response to 

his request if any system of records 

named by the individual contains a 

record pertaining to him or her. Since 

EPA is claiming that this system of 

records is exempt from subsection (d) of 

the Act, concerning access to records, 

the requirements of subsections (f)(2) 

through (5) of the Act, concerning 

agency rules for obtaining access to such 

records, are inapplicable and are 

exempted to the extent that this system 

of records is exempt from subsection (d) 

of the Act. Although EPA is claiming 

exemption from the requirements of 

subsection (f) of the Act, EPA has 

promulgated rules which establish 

Agency procedures because, under 

certain circumstances, it might be 

appropriate for an individual to have 

access to all or a portion of his or her 

records in this system of records. These 

procedures are described elsewhere in 

this part. 

(d) Exempt records provided by 

another Federal agency. Individuals 

may not have access to records 

maintained by the EPA if such records 

were provided by another Federal 

agency which has determined by 

regulation that such records are subject 

to general exemption under 5 U.S.C. 

552a(j) or specific exemption under 5 

U.S.C. 552a(k). If an individual requests 

access to such exempt records, EPA will 

consult with the source agency. 

(e) Exempt records included in a 

nonexempt system of records. All 

records obtained from a system of 

records which has been determined by 

regulation to be subject to specific 

exemption under 5 U.S.C. 552a(k) retain 

their exempt status even if such records 

are also included in a system of records 

for which a specific exemption has not 

been claimed. 

[FR Doc. 06–45 Filed 1–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2005–CA–0015; FRL–

8010–7] 

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 

a revision to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). This revision was proposed 

in the Federal Register on June 14, 2005 

and concerns particulate matter (PM) 

and ammonia emissions from fluid 

catalytic cracking units (FCCUs) at oil 

refineries. We are approving a local rule 

that regulates these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act as amended in 

1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

3, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA-R09-OAR–2005-CA–0015 

for this action. The index to the docket 

is available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yvonne Fong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4117, fong.yvonnew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 14, 2005 (70 FR 34435), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rule 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD .............. 1105.1 Reduction of PM10 and Ammonia Emissions from Fluid Catalytic Cracking 

Units.

11/07/03 06/03/04 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
242 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule 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 party. 

1. Gregory R. McClintock, Western 

States Petroleum Association (WSPA); 

letter dated July 14, 2005 and received 

July 14, 2005 by electronic mail. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: WSPA commented that 

sufficient opportunity for public 

comment was not provided by our June 

14, 2005 proposal. WSPA requested an 

extension of the original 30-day public 

comment period and an opportunity to 

consult with EPA. WSPA asserted that 

§ 6(a)(1) of Executive Order No. 12866 

provides for ‘‘the involvement of * * * 

those expected to be burdened by any 

regulation’’ and a ‘‘meaningful 

opportunity to comment’’ of no less 

than 60 days. 

Response #1: The application of the 

60-day public comment period 

provision in § 6(a)(1) of Executive Order 

No. 12866 is not appropriate to this 

action because this action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. It is also not appropriate for 

EPA to invite consultation on a state 

law. The state, in this case, the 

SCAQMD, has the authority under 

California Health and Safety Code 

§§ 40000 and 40001 to adopt rules and 

regulations to achieve and maintain the 

federal ambient air quality standards. 

Furthermore, the SCAQMD satisfied the 

‘‘meaningful opportunity to comment’’

intent of Executive Order 12866 during 

its rulemaking process. When the 

SCAQMD began developing Rule 1105.1 

in January 2002, it ensured significant 

participation from industry through the 

establishment and meetings of the 

Refinery Working Group. The rule was 

ultimately made available to the public 

and other interested parties on 

September 2, 2003, more than 60 days 

in advance of the November 7, 2003 

Board Hearing to adopt Rule 1105.1. 

WSPA has been actively litigating the 

regulation of oil refineries with the 

SCAQMD and should not have required 

more than the standard 30-day comment 

period EPA makes available for this type 

of rulemaking action to submit 

comments to us on this rule. 

Comment #2: WSPA commented that 

Rule 1105.1 is currently being litigated 

in the Second District Court of Appeal 

for the State of California. WSPA 

anticipates that Rule 1105.1 will be 

vacated by the Court on the grounds that 

compliance with the rule is 

unachievable, that a more viable option 

for regulating this source category 

exists, and that the requirements of 

California Health and Safety Code 

§§ 40440(b)(1), 40405, 40406; Civil Code 

§ 3531 have ultimately not been met. 

WSPA contends that EPA approval of 

Rule 1105.1 into the SIP at this time 

would interfere with the State Court of 

Appeal’s jurisdiction and implicate the 

issues of federalism set forth in 

Executive Order No. 13132, thereby also 

requiring Agency submission of a 

federalism summary impact statement 

to the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB). 

Response #2: EPA believes that it is 

inappropriate to disapprove or delay 

approval of a SIP revision merely on the 

basis of pending state court challenges. 

To do so would allow parties to impede 

SIP development merely by initiating 

litigation. Alternatively, were EPA 

required to assess the validity of a 

litigant’s state law claims in the SIP 

approval process, EPA would have to 

act like a state court, in effect weighing 

the competing claims of a state and a 

litigant. Therefore, EPA does not 

interpret CAA section 110(a)(2) to 

require the Agency to make such 

judgments in the SIP approval process, 

especially where the validity of those 

challenges turns upon issues of state 

law. Moreover, EPA believes that the 

structure of the CAA provides 

appropriate mechanisms for litigants to 

pursue their claims and appropriate 

remedies in the event that they are 

ultimately successful. See Sierra Club v. 

Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp., 716 

F.2d 1145, 1153 (7th Cir. 1983) (State 

court invalidation of a SIP provision 

resulted in an unenforceable SIP 

provision which the state had to reenact 

or which EPA may use as the basis for 

a SIP call). 

With regard to the possibility of a 

more viable option for regulating the 

FCCUs covered by Rule 1105.1, EPA is 

prohibited by CAA section 110(a)(2) 

from considering the economic or 

technological feasibility of the 

provisions of rules submitted for 

approval as a SIP revision. Union 

Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265–

66 (1976). As noted by the Supreme 

Court, it is the province of state and 

local authorities to determine whether 

or not to impose limits that may require 

technology forcing measures. EPA must 

assess the SIP revision on the basis of 

the factors set forth in CAA section 

110(a)(2) which do not provide for the 

disapproval of a rule into a SIP based 

upon economic or technological 

infeasibility. 

EPA’s action does not interfere with 

the State Court of Appeal’s jurisdiction 

or implicate the issues of federalism set 

forth in Executive Order No. 13132 

because, as discussed above, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and imposes no 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. Federalism, as 

defined in § 2(a) of Executive Order No. 

13132, ‘‘is rooted in the belief that 

issues that are not national in scope or 

significance are most appropriately 

addressed by the level of government 

closest to the people.’’ With this action, 

EPA is affirming the states’ ‘‘unique 

authorities, qualities, and abilities to 

meet the needs of the people’’ and is 

deferring to the state’s ‘‘policymaking 

discretion’’ to adopt rules and 

regulations to achieve and maintain the 

federal ambient air quality standards. 

This action does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

Clean Air Act. See, Executive Order No. 

13132 §§ 2(e) and 2(i). Agency 

submission of a federalism summary 

impact statement to the Director of OMB 

is, therefore, not necessary or 

appropriate. 

Comment #3: WSPA refuted the 

Agency’s determination that the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

Appendix V have been met because 

§ 2.1(c) of Appendix V requires that the 

state have ‘‘the necessary legal authority 

under State law to adopt and implement 

the plan.’’ As discussed in Comment #2, 

WSPA claims the state does not have 

the authority to adopt and implement 

Rule 1105.1 because it did not satisfy 

the California Health and Safety Code 

§§ 40440(b)(1), 40405, 40406; Civil Code 

§ 3531 requirement of achievable 

compliance. WSPA also contends that 

the state submittal of Rule 1105.1 is not 

complete because SCAQMD failed to 

meet recordkeeping requirements in 

§ 40728 of the California Health and 

Safety Code and other procedural 

requirements of the California 

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 

Response #3: As stated in Responses 

#1 and #2 above, the SCAQMD has 

authority under California Health and 

Safety Code §§ 40000 and 40001 to 

adopt rules and regulations to achieve 

and maintain the federal ambient air 

quality standards and, pursuant to 

Agency interpretation of CAA section 

110(a)(2), EPA cannot delay the SIP 

development process by awaiting the 

Second District Court of Appeal’s 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 243 

judgment on this issue. With their 

submission of Rule 1105.1, SCAQMD 

and CARB attested that Rule 1105.1 

meets the requirements in the California 

Health and Safety Code and CEQA. EPA 

generally defers to the state and local 

agencies in their interpretation of state 

requirements. The lower Court upheld 

the state and local agencies’ submission 

of Rule 1105.1 as meeting those 

requirements and we see no obvious 

reasons to question the state and local 

agencies’ determination that Rule 

1105.1 complies with the applicable 

state requirements. 

Comment #4: WSPA postulated that 

implementation of the requirements 

contained in Rule 1105.1 would result 

in more frequent maintenance and 

shutdowns of FCCUs. WSPA, therefore, 

asserted that approval of Rule 1105.1 

into the SIP should be considered a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ within 

the meaning of § 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order No. 12866 and a ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ within the meaning of 

§ 4(b)(1)(ii) of Executive Order No. 

13211 because the rule would interfere 

with the supply of gasoline and other 

petroleum products, increase the cost of 

these products, and adversely affect 

competition, productivity and job 

availability at refineries. Furthermore, 

as a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

‘‘significant energy action,’’ EPA should 

submit additional information, 

including a ‘‘Statement of Energy 

Effects,’’ and obtain approval from the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs (OIRA) pursuant to §§ 6(a)(3)(B)–

(C) and 8 of Executive Order No. 12866 

and § 3 of Executive Order No. 13211. 

Response #4: As discussed in 

Response #1, this action does not 

impose any additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law 

because it merely approves state law as 

meeting Federal requirements. Approval 

of Rule 1105.1 into the SIP does not 

create any added Federal requirements. 

Executive Order Nos. 12866 and 

131211, are applicable Federal agencies, 

not States; therefore, the requirements to 

submit additional documents to and 

obtain approval from OIRA are not 

germane to this action. 

Comment #5: WSPA commented that 

Rule 1105.1 is not enforceable as 

asserted in our June 14, 2005 proposed 

rulemaking because compliance with 

the requirements of Rule 1105.1 are 

unachievable. WSPA claimed that the 

proposed rule failed to address what is 

meant by enforceable. 

Response #5: The feasibility of rules 

submitted for approval as a SIP revision 

is discussed in Response #2 and is not 

germane to CAA enforceability 

requirements. EPA maintains, as stated 

in our proposed rulemaking, that Rule 

1105.1 is enforceable and that the 

criteria upon which this enforceability 

determination were made are clearly 

outlined under the section entitled 

‘‘How is EPA Evaluating the Rule’’ at 70 

FR 34436. 

Comment #6: WSPA commented that 

the requirements of Rule 1105.1 rely on 

incorrect expectations regarding the 

availability, efficacy, and reliability of 

various control technologies, including 

dry and wet ESPs, wet gas scrubbers, 

sulfur oxide reducing agents, and 

selective catalytic and non-catalytic 

reduction. 

Response #6: See the discussion in 

Response #2 regarding the economic or 

technological feasibility of provisions of 

rules submitted for approval as a SIP 

revision. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

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

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule 

into the California SIP. 

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 March 6, 2006. 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES
244 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 2 / Wednesday, January 4, 2006 / Rules and Regulations 

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, Particulate Matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: December 5, 2005. 

Wayne Nastri, 

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)(331) (i)(B)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(331) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Rule 1105.1, adopted on November 

7, 2003. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 06–56 Filed 1–3–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2005–CA–0016; FRL–

8007–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Diego 

County Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

a revision to the San Diego County Air 

Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision was proposed in the Federal 

Register on February 25, 2004 and 

concerns oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 

emissions from stationary reciprocating 

internal combustion engines. We are 

approving a local rule that regulates 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: This rule is effective on February 

3, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2005–CA–0016 

for this action. The index to the docket 

is available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Yvonne Fong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4117, fong.yvonnew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Proposed Action 

On February 25, 2004 (69 FR 8613), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SDCAQMD ........... 69.4 Stationary Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines—Reasonably Available Control Technology.07/30/03 11/04/03 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period we did not receive any 

comments. 

III. EPA Action 

Our assessment that the submitted 

rule complies with the relevant CAA 

requirements has not changed. 

Therefore, as authorized in section 

110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 

approving this rule 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 


wwhite on PROD1PC65 with RULES