Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 32273

1On November 19, 2002, the Nevada Division of 

Environmental Protection submitted to EPA an 

amendment to the Plan adopted by the Clark 

County Board of Commissioners on November 19, 

2002. The amendment establishes new deadlines 

for SIP commitments concerning revisions to 

Sections 90 through 94 and adds documentation on 

adopted local ordinances for fireplaces and 

woodstoves as Appendix R of the Plan. EPA 

approved these ordinances in a separate action. 68 

FR 52838 (Sept. 8, 2003).

2PM–10 is particulate matter with an aerometric 

diameter of less than or equal to a nominal 10 

micrometers. There are two separate NAAQS for 

PM–10, an annual standard of 50 μg/m3 and a 24-

hour standard of 150 μg/m3.

3Because the demonstration of BACM subsumes 

the demonstration of Reasonably Available Control 

Measures (RACM), a separate analysis to determine 

if the measures represent a RACM level of control 

is not necessary. The BACM demonstration, 

therefore, is also a finding that the Plan provides 

for the implementation of RACM as required under 

CAA sections 173(c)(1) and 189(a)(1)(C).

§ 520.446 [Amended]

■ 2. Section 520.446 is amended by 

removing paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2); by 

redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3) 

as paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2); in 

paragraph (b)(1) by removing ‘‘No. 

000009’’ and by adding in its place ‘‘Nos. 

000009 and 059130’’; and in newly 

redesignated paragraph (b)(2) by 

removing ‘‘(a)(3)’’ and by adding in its 

place ‘‘(a)(2).’’

Dated: May 19, 2004.

Steven D. Vaughn,

Director, Office of New Animal Drug 

Evaluation, Center for Veterinary Medicine.

[FR Doc. 04–12961 Filed 6–8–04; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–S

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 100 

[CGD01–04–052] 

Special Local Regulation; Harvard-Yale 

Regatta, Thames River, New London, 

CT

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS.

ACTION: Notice of implementation of 

regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is 

implementing the permanent 

regulations for the annual Harvard-Yale 

Regatta, a rowing competition held on 

the Thames River in New London, CT. 

The regulation controls vessel traffic 

within the immediate vicinity of the 

event due to the confined nature of the 

waterway and anticipated congestion at 

the time of the event, thus providing for 

the safety of life and property on the 

affected navigable waters.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 

100.101 will be enforced from 9:30 a.m. 

on June 12, 2004, until 5 p.m on June 

13, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Petty Officer Austin Nagle, Office of 

Search and Rescue, First Coast Guard 

District, (617) 223–8460.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice implements the permanent 

special local regulation governing the 

2004 Harvard-Yale Regatta. The 

regulations in 33 CFR 100.101 will be 

enforced from 9:30 a.m. until 5 p.m. on 

June 12, 2004, with a rain date of June 

13, 2004, if the regatta is postponed due 

to inclement weather. 

A portion of the Thames River in New 

London, Connecticut will be closed 

during the event to all vessel traffic 

except participants, official regatta 

vessels, patrol craft and spectators as 

prescribed by the regulation. The 

regulated area is that area of the river 

between the Penn Central drawbridge, 

now known as the Thames River 

Amtrak drawbridge, and Bartlett’s Cove. 

Additional public notification will be 

made via the First Coast Guard District 

Local Notice to Mariners and marine 

safety broadcasts. The full text of this 

regulation is found in 33 CFR 100.101.

Dated: May 27, 2004. 

Vivien S. Crea, 

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

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 04–12964 Filed 6–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[NV–040–0075; FRL–7663–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Nevada-Las 

Vegas Valley PM–10 Nonattainment 

Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment 

of the Annual and 24-Hour PM–10 

Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the serious 

area particulate matter (PM–10) plan for 

the Las Vegas Planning Area that 

addresses attainment of the annual and 

24-hour PM–10 national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS) and 

includes motor vehicle emissions 

budgets for transportation conformity. 

We are also granting Nevada’s request to 

extend the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) 

deadline for attaining the 24-hour PM–

10 standard in the Las Vegas area from 

2001 to 2006. Finally, we are approving 

into the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

fugitive dust rules adopted by Clark 

County (County).

DATES: Effective Date: July 9, 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 9, Air Division, Air Planning 

Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901; 

Clark County Department of Air Quality 

Management, 500 S. Grand Central 

Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155; 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection, 333 West Nye Lane, 

Carson City, NV 89710. 

Electronic Availability 

This document and the Response to 

Comments Document for this action are 

also available as electronic files on 

EPA’s Region 9 Web Page at http://

www.epa.gov/region09/air.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Karen Irwin, Office of Air Planning 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105. (415) 947–

4116, irwin.karen@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This 

supplementary information is organized 

as follows:

I. Summary of Today’s Actions 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. Background to Today’s Actions 

A. Prior PM Planning Activities in Clark 

County 

B. Serious Area Plan for the Las Vegas Area 

IV. Other Related Action in the Las Vegas 

Area 

V. Final Actions 

VI. Administrative Requirements

I. Summary of Today’s Actions 

We are approving the PM–10 State 

Implementation Plan for Clark County

(‘‘Clark County Serious Area Plan’’ or 

‘‘Plan’’), submitted on July 23, 2001.1

The Plan addresses attainment of the 

annual and 24-hour PM–10 standards.2

This action is based on our 

determination that this Plan complies 

with the CAA requirements for serious 

PM–10 nonattainment area plans.

First, we are approving the following 

specific elements of the Plan: 

• A demonstration that the Plan 

provides for implementation of best 

available control measures (BACM); 3

32274 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

4The Plan included the November 16, 2000, 

versions of these rules. On October 24, 2002, the 

Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 

submitted to EPA revised versions of Clark County 

Sections 90 through 93, dated November 20, 2001, 

which supersede the earlier versions submitted 

with the Plan. It is this 2001 version of Sections 90 

through 93 that we are approving in today’s action. 

The versions of Section 94 and the portions of 

Section 0 being approved are the November 16, 

2000 versions. The County has since adopted 

revisions to these rules and EPA will review and 

act on these changes in a separate rulemaking.

5See Clark County’s February 15, 1995 submittal, 

‘‘Addendum to the ’’ ‘‘Moderate Area’’’ PM–10 State 

Implementation Plan for the Las Vegas Valley’’ (The 

1995 RACM Addendum) and December 1994 

submittal ‘‘Providing for the Evaluation, Adoption 

and Implementation of Best Available Control 

Measures and Best Available Control Technology to 

Improve PM–10 Air Quality’’ (1994 BACM Plan).

• An emissions inventory; 

• A demonstration of attainment of 

the annual standard by the CAA 

deadline of December 31, 2001 and a 

demonstration that attainment of the 24-

hour standard by December 31, 2001 is 

impracticable; 

• A demonstration that attainment of 

the 24-hour standard will occur by the 

most expeditious alternative date 

practicable, in this case, December 31, 

2006; 

• A demonstration that the Plan 

includes to our satisfaction the most 

stringent measures (MSM) found in the 

implementation plan of another state or 

achieved in practice in another state and 

that can be feasibly implemented in the 

area; 

• A demonstration that major sources 

of PM–10 precursors such as nitrogen 

oxides and sulfur dioxide do not 

significantly contribute to violations of 

the PM–10 standards; 

• A demonstration that the Plan 

provides for reasonable further progress 

and quantitative milestones; 

• Transportation conformity motor 

vehicle emissions budgets; and 

• Contingency measures. 

We are also approving the County’s 

fugitive dust rules (Sections 90 through 

94 and portions of Section 0),4 as well 

as specific commitments by the County 

and local jurisdictions within the 

County to implement the Plan and 

perform other activities. As explained in 

our proposed approval, we are finding 

that the Plan and these rules comply 

with CAA sections 110(a) and 

189(b)(1)(B).

This action also grants Nevada’s 

request to extend the attainment date for 

the 24-hour PM–10 standard from 

December 31, 2001 to December 31, 

2006. This approval is based on our 

determination that the State has met the 

CAA’s criteria for granting such 

extensions. 

This preamble describes our actions 

on the Clark County Serious Area Plan. 

We have not repeated the evaluation of 

the Plan that we provided in the 

proposal for today’s action. See 68 FR 

2954, January 22, 2003. 

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. Jennifer Anderson, Sierra Club; letter 

dated February 21, 2003. 

2. Robert Hall, Nevada Environmental 

Coalition, Inc.; letter dated February 

21, 2003.

Responses to all comments can be 

found in our Response to Comments 

Document that accompanies this final 

action. A copy of this document can be 

downloaded from our website or 

obtained by calling or writing the 

contact person listed above. 

III. Background to Today’s Action 

A. Prior PM Planning Activities in Clark 

County 

The 1977 Amendments to the CAA 

required States to revise their SIPs for 

all areas that did not meet the NAAQS. 

At that time, EPA’s particulate matter 

NAAQS were measured in terms of total 

suspended particulates (TSP). The Las 

Vegas Valley was designated 

nonattainment for TSP. As a result, 

Nevada submitted, and EPA approved, a 

nonattainment area plan and a series of 

revisions with state and local control 

measures. See 46 FR 21758 (April 14, 

1981), 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981) 

and 47 FR 26386 (June 18, 1982). 

In 1987, EPA promulgated NAAQS for 

PM–10, 52 FR 24643 (July 1, 1987), and 

the approach by which areas would be 

designated. 52 FR 24672 (July 1, 1987). 

In accordance with these rulemakings, 

EPA categorized areas based on the 

likelihood that the SIP existing at the 

time would need to be revised to meet 

the PM–10 standards. 52 FR 29383 

(August 7, 1987). Clark County was 

placed in ‘‘Group I’’, meaning EPA 

found there was a strong likelihood that 

the area would violate the PM–10 

NAAQS and that SIP revisions would be 

required. Id.; see also 55 FR 45799 

(October 31, 1990) (refining definition of 

area to be the Hydrographic Area 212). 

EPA concluded that actual attainment 

and nonattainment designations with 

respect to the new PM–10 NAAQS were 

not required under the Act and retained 

the TSP designations in place at the 

time. 

In 1990 Congress amended the Clean 

Air Act. Under section 107(d)(4)(B)(i) of 

the amended Act, all areas identified as 

Group I areas with respect to the PM–

10 NAAQS were designated 

nonattainment by operation of law on 

November 15, 1990—the enactment date 

of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. 

Section 188(a) of the amended Act 

further required that all areas designated 

nonattainment by operation of law be 

classified as moderate nonattainment 

areas. Thus, EPA designated Clark 

County a moderate PM–10 

nonattainment area. See 56 FR 11101 

(March 15, 1991) (announcing 

designation of areas) and 56 FR 56694 

(November 6, 1991) (codifying 

designations). CAA section 189(a)(2) 

required moderate areas designated by 

operation of law to submit plans by 

November 15, 1991. The County 

submitted its moderate area plan on 

December 6, 1991. 

In 1993, EPA found, in accordance 

with CAA section 188(b)(1)(A), that the 

Clark County area could not practicably 

attain the PM–10 standard by the 

applicable moderate area attainment 

date of December 31, 1994, and 

therefore should be reclassified to a 

serious PM–10 nonattainment area. 58 

FR 3334 (January 8, 1993). EPA 

concluded that implementation of the 

control measures included in Clark 

County’s moderate area plan would not 

result in emission reductions sufficient 

to attain the 24-hour standard. EPA also 

found that a substantial portion of PM–

10 emissions in the area were due to 

fugitive dust and additional controls 

would be required. Id.

Reclassification to a serious PM–10 

nonattainment area triggered, among 

other requirements, the requirement to 

implement more stringent control 

measures (i.e., BACM) and the 

requirement to submit a revised plan 

demonstrating that the area would attain 

the PM–10 NAAQS by a new attainment 

date of December 31, 2001. See CAA 

section 189(b). The County submitted a 

serious area PM–10 plan in 1997 to 

demonstrate attainment in accordance 

with section 189(b). EPA, however, 

found this attainment demonstration, 

along with previously submitted plans 

for RACM and BACM,5 failed to meet 

the requirements of the CAA and 

therefore proposed to disapprove these 

submittals. 65 FR 37324 (June 14, 1998). 

Prior to EPA taking final action on the 

proposed disapproval, the State of 

Nevada withdrew the moderate and 

serious area plans for Clark County. See 

Letter from Allen Biaggi, Administrator, 

Division of Environmental Protection, 

Nevada Department of Conservation, to 

Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 32275

6While the FIP Clock expired in December 2002, 

EPA pursued review and approval of the SIP 

submitted in 2001 rather than preparation of a FIP. 

Today’s approval removes the obigation to prepare 

a FIP for the area.

7These new fugitive dust rules generally 

supplement the existing PM–10 measures 

previously approved into the SIP in 1981 and 1982. 

The two exceptions are: (1) Section 17 (‘‘Permission 

to Disturb Topsoil’’), which is being removed from 

the SIP by this action and replaced with the new 

Sections 90 through 94; and (2) the definitions in 

sections 1.35 (‘‘Fugitive Dust’’) and 1.64 (‘‘Off-road 

Vehicle’’), which are being replaced by the new 

definitions in Sections 0.70 and 0.114, respectively.

8 In 2001, the Clark County Department of Air 

Quality Management (DAQM) was created to 

handle both the permitting and enforcement 

functions of the Clark County Health District along 

with the planning functions previously managed by 

the Clark County Department of Comprehensive 

Planning. Because of the shifting organization of the 

local air agencies, we refer generally to the 

‘‘County’’ for both the new DAQM and its 

predecessor agencies.

9On October 24, 2002, the State submitted 

revised versions of Sections 90 through 93, dated 

November 20, 2001, to replace the November 16, 

2000 versions included with the Plan submittal. In 

addition, on November 19, 2002, the State 

submitted amendments to the Plan regarding SIP 

commitment deadlines and adoption of local 

ordinances.

EPA Region 9 (December 5, 2000). On 

January 5, 2001, EPA issued a ‘‘finding 

of nonsubmittal’’ for failure to submit 

the required PM–10 plans. See 66 FR 

1046. This finding was made effective 

December 20, 2000, and began an 18-

month ‘‘clock’’ for mandatory 

application of sanctions and a 2-year 

clock for promulgation of a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) in 

accordance with CAA section 179. Id. 

Under the sanctions clock, mandatory 

sanctions (i.e., tighter offset ratios for 

new and modified major sources and, 

six months later, highway funding 

restrictions) would be imposed unless 

and until EPA found the State had made 

a ‘‘complete’’ submittal of a plan 

addressing the applicable PM–10 

requirements for the Las Vegas Valley. 

See id. at 1047 (citing 40 CFR 52.31 and 

CAA section 179). Under the FIP clock, 

EPA was to promulgate a FIP in place 

of a SIP unless and until EPA approved 

a SIP for the area.6 CAA section 

110(c)(1).

B. Serious Area Plan for the Las Vegas 

Area 

Following EPA’s proposed 

disapproval of the 1997 PM–10 Plan, the 

County began revising its fugitive dust 

control measures. On June 22, 2000, the 

County adopted dust controls for open 

areas and vacant lots (Section 90), dust 

controls for unpaved roads (Section 91), 

dust controls for unpaved parking lots 

(Section 92), dust controls for paved 

roads and street sweepers (Section 93), 

and dust controls for construction 

activities (Section 94 and Construction 

Activities Notebook Including Section 

94 Handbook).7 On November 16, 2000, 

the County revised Section 0 governing 

regulatory definitions to include a 

number of definitions related to fugitive 

dust control measures. These rules 

provide the backbone for the Clark 

County Serious Area Plan, which was 

adopted by the Clark County Board of 

Commissioners on June 19, 2001.8 The 

Nevada Division of Environmental 

Protection submitted Sections 90 

through 94 and Section 0, along with 

the June 19, 2001, Plan to EPA on July 

25, 2001.9 On January 11, 2002, we 

determined the conformity budgets in 

the Plan were adequate (67 FR 1461) 

and on January 22, 2003, we proposed 

approval of the Plan and the associated 

rules (68 FR 2954). The Technical 

Support Document associated with our 

proposed approval is available on EPA’s 

Web site.

The Plan supports the County’s 

strategy of focusing controls on sources 

of fugitive dust. The Plan includes a 

detailed inventory of PM–10 emissions 

in the nonattainment area and uses 

modeling and monitoring data to 

determine the effect these emissions 

have on ambient concentrations and to 

identify the significant contributors to 

violations in the area. The Plan and 

PM–10 monitoring data show the area 

met and continues to meet the annual 

PM–10 standard but was not able to 

meet the 24-hour standard by the 

statutory deadline of December 31, 

2001. The Plan further demonstrates 

that the County has adopted control 

measures meeting the CAA 

requirements for BACM and MSM and 

that implementation of these measures 

will result in reductions in the 

inventory of emissions to levels that 

ensure the area will attain the 24-hour 

standard by the extended attainment 

date of December 31, 2006. The Plan 

also includes demonstrations of 

reasonable further progress between 

now and the 2006 attainment deadline, 

a demonstration of the need for an 

extension, a description of contingency 

measures and enforceable commitments, 

and motor vehicle emissions budgets for 

ensuring transportation projects 

conform to the Plan. 

We received comments on several 

aspects of the Plan and our responses to 

these comments are provided in a 

separate document. See Response to 

Comments Document (April 2004). 

While the comments led us to look more 

carefully at certain demonstrations and, 

in some cases, request additional 

information from the County, we have 

not changed our conclusions from the 

proposal that the rules and Plan comply 

with the requirements of the Act and 

reasonably support the County’s 

demonstration of attainment. 

IV. Other Related Action in the Las 

Vegas Area 

In addition to working on this PM–10 

Plan and the associated fugitive dust 

rulemakings, the County is in the 

process of updating air control 

requirements on several other fronts. 

The County has revised its stationary 

source permitting regulations for new 

and modified sources in Sections 12, 58 

and 59 (and portions of Section 0). 

These regulations will ensure that new 

and modified major sources of PM–10 

and other nonattainment criteria 

pollutants will be subject to offset and 

control requirements. In addition EPA is 

in the final stages of reviewing the Las 

Vegas carbon monoxide (CO) attainment 

plan. EPA proposed approval of this 

plan, which includes inspection and 

maintenance and gasoline and 

transportation control measure 

provisions, on January 28, 2003 (68 FR 

4141). These actions may provide 

incidental PM–10 benefits for the area 

and will be reviewed to ensure 

consistency with today’s action. 

V. Final Actions 

With this final action, we are 

incorporating by reference the following 

portions of the Clark County Serious 

Area Plan for the Las Vegas Planning 

Area, adopted June 19, 2001, with 

amendments adopted November 19, 

2002, into the Nevada SIP: 

(1) The demonstration in Chapter 4 

and Appendices G and J that the Plan 

provides for implementation of BACM 

as required under CAA section 

189(b)(1)(B). 

(2) The baseline and projected 

emissions inventories provided in 

Chapter 3 and Appendices B through E 

and L as required under CAA section 

172(c)(3). 

(3) The demonstration in Chapters 5 

and 7 of attainment of the annual 

standard by the CAA deadline of 

December 31, 2001 and that attainment 

of the 24-hour standard by December 31, 

2001 is impracticable as required under 

CAA section 189(b)(1)(A). 

(4) The demonstration in Chapter 7 

and Appendix A that attainment of the 

24-hour standard will occur by the most 

expeditious alternative date practicable, 

in this case, December 31, 2006, as 

required under CAA sections 

189(b)(1)(A) and 188(e). 

(5) The demonstration in Chapter 6 

that the Plan includes MSM as required 

under CAA section 188(e). 

32276 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

10EPA notified Clark County that the motor 

vehicle emissions budgets were adequate by letter 

from Jack Broadbent, EPA, to Allen Biaggi, Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection, November 9, 

2001. Public notice of EPA’s adequacy 

determination was provided on January 11, 2002 

(67 FR 1461).

11Clark County included all of Section 0 in 

Appendix G of the Plan. In this action, we are 

approving only definitions relevant to Sections 90 

through 94.

(6) The demonstration in Chapter 4 

that major sources of PM–10 precursors 

such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur 

dioxide do not significantly contribute 

to violations of the PM–10 standards as 

required under CAA section 189(e). 

(7) The demonstration in Chapter 5 

and Appendix M that the Plan provides 

for reasonable further progress and 

quantitative milestones as required 

under CAA sections 189(c) and 

172(c)(2). 

(8) The contingency measures in 

Chapter 4 as required under CAA 

section 172(c)(9).

We are also approving the following 

transportation conformity motor vehicle 

emissions budgets in Appendix N 10 as 

required under CAA section 176(c):

Year 

Motor vehicle

emissions budget

(tons PM–10 per day) 

2001 ...................... 201.75

2003 ...................... 155.77

2006 ...................... 141.41

Finally, today’s final approval 

includes additions to and removals from 

the SIP of specific local measures as 

follows: 

(1) We are approving into the SIP 

Clark County Sections 90, 91, 92 and 93, 

adopted on November 20, 2001, which 

supersede earlier versions submitted in 

Appendix G of the Plan. 

(2) We are approving the following 

portions of Section 0, adopted on 

November 16, 2000, into the SIP: 11

Section 0.25 ‘‘Best Management 

Practices’’

Section 0.33 ‘‘Commercial and 

Residential Construction’’

Section 0.36 ‘‘Construction Activity’’

Section 0.37 ‘‘Control Measure’’

Section 0.43 ‘‘Disturbed Surface Area’’

Section 0.45 ‘‘Dust Palliative’’

Section 0.46 ‘‘Dust Suppressant’’

Section 0.47 ‘‘Easement’’

Section 0.48 ‘‘Easement Holder’’

Section 0.51 ‘‘Emergency’’

Section 0.58 ‘‘EPA or Administrator’’

Section 0.65 ‘‘Flood Control 

Construction’’

Section 0.70 ‘‘Fugitive Dust’’

Section 0.81 ‘‘Hearing Officer’’

Section 0.84 ‘‘Highway Construction’’

Section 0.110 ‘‘Nonroad Easement’’

Section 0.111 ‘‘Normal Farm Cultural 

Practice’’

Section 0.114 ‘‘Offroad Vehicle’’

Section 0.117 ‘‘Open Areas and Vacant 

Lots’’

Section 0.120 ‘‘Owner and/or 

Operator’’

Section 0.127 ‘‘Pave’’

Section 0.132 ‘‘PM–10 Nonattainment 

Area’’

Section 0.133 ‘‘PM–10’’

Section 0.140 ‘‘Public Road’’

Section 0.141 ‘‘Reclaimed Water’’

Section 0.147 ‘‘Road Easement’’

Section 0.162 ‘‘Trench’’

Section 0.164 ‘‘Unpaved Parking Lot’’

Section 0.166 ‘‘Vacant Lot’’

(3) We are approving into the SIP the 

commitments contained in Chapter 4, 

section 4.8. 

(4) We are approving into the SIP 

Clark County Section 94, adopted on 

November 16, 2000, along with the 

associated August 24, 2000, 

‘‘Construction Activities Notebook 

including the Section 94 Handbook’’

(Appendix G). 

(5) We are removing from the SIP 

Clark County Section 17 ‘‘Permission to 

Disturb Topsoil’’ and Sections 1.35 

(defining ‘‘Fugitive Dust’’) and 1.64 

(defining ‘‘Off-road Vehicle’’) because 

these sections are replaced by the 

overlapping provisions in Sections 0 

and 90 through 94 being approved 

today. 

VI. Administrative 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 32111, 

‘‘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 

(Public Law 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 plan and rules 

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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 111 / Wednesday, June 9, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 32277

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 August 9, 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements.

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

Dated: May 3, 2004. 

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 DD—Nevada

■ 2. Section 52.1470 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(16)(viii)(B), 

(c)(24)(iv)(B), and (c)(42) to (c)(44) to 

read as follows:

§ 52.1470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(16) * * *

(viii) * * *

(B) Previously approved on August 

27, 1981 at (c)(16)(viii) and now deleted 

Section 17, Rules 17.1–17.8.

* * * * *

(24) * * *

(iv) * * *

(B) Previously approved on June 18, 

1982 at (c)(24)(iv) and now deleted 

Section 17, Rules 17.2.1 and 17.6.1.

* * * * *

(42) The following plan was 

submitted on July 23, 2001, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Clark County Department of Air 

Quality Management. 

(1) PM–10 State Implementation Plan 

for Clark County including: Chapter 3, 

Chapter 4 (excluding pages 4–125 and 

4–126), Chapters 5 through 7, 

Appendices A through E, Appendix G 

(excluding pages 90–1 through 90–10, 

91–1 through 91–9, 92–1 through 92–7, 

93–1 through 93–8, and the following 

paragraphs of pages 0–1 through 0–46: 

0.1–0.24, 0.26–0.32, 0.34, 0.35, 0.38–

0.42, 0.44, 0.49, 0.50, 0.52–0.57, 0.59–

0.64, 0.66–0.69, 0.71–0.80, 0.82, 0.83, 

0.85–0.109, 0.112, 0.113, 0.115, 0.116, 

0.118, 0.119, 0.121–0.126, 0.128–0.131, 

0.134–0.139, 0.142–0.146, 0.148–0.161, 

0.163, 0.165, and 0.167–0.172), 

Appendix J, and Appendices L through 

N adopted on June 19, 2001. 

(43) The following regulations were 

submitted on October 24, 2002, by the 

Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Clark County Department of Air 

Quality Management. 

(1) Sections 90, 91, 92 and 93 adopted 

on November 20, 2001. 

(44) The following plan amendments 

were submitted on November 19, 2002, 

by the Governor’s designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Clark County Department of Air 

Quality Management. 

(1) Pages 4–125 and 4–126 and 

Appendix R adopted on November 19, 

2002.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04–12918 Filed 6–8–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[VA149–5076a; FRL–7671–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Commonwealth of Virginia; VOC 

Emission Standards for Solvent Metal 

Cleaning Operations in the 

Metropolitan Washington, DC Ozone 

Nonattainment Area

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision 

establishes regulations for the control of 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from solvent metal cleaning 

operations in the Northern Virginia 

portion of the Metropolitan Washington, 

D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area 

(Northern Virginia Area). EPA is 

approving this revision to the 

Commonwealth of Virginia SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA).

DATES: This rule is effective on August 

9, 2004 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by July 9, 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 VA149–5076 by one of the 

following methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:/

/www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

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

C. Mail: Makeba Morris, Chief, Air 

Quality Planning Branch Name, 

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. VA149–5076. 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 Web 

site 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 e-mail 

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.