+(,121/,1(

Citation: 69 Fed. Reg. 32273 2004 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Mon Jul 26 13:30:26 2010

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

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

§ 520.446 [Amended]

* 2. Section 5 20.446 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, Centerfor 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

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]

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 PM10 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/region 09/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

'On 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).

2 PM-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 pg/m 3 and a 24-

hour standard of 150 g/m 3.

3 Because 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).

[CGD01-04-052] Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Nevada-Las Special Local Regulation; Harvard-Yale Vegas Valley PM-10 Nonattainment

Regatta, Thames River, New London, Area; Serious Area Plan for Attainment CT of the Annual and 24-Hour PM-10

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Standards

32273

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 32273 2004
32274 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 111/Wednesday, June 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations

* 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.

4 The 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.

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 PM10 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 PM10 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,

5 See 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).

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

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

6 While 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.

7 These 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

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

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.

9 On 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.

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

1 72(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).

32275

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

(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):

Motor vehicle

Year emissions budget

(tons PM-10 per day)

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

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

2006 ...................... 141.4 1

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:"

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"

10 EPA 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).

11 Clark 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.

Section 0.111

Practice"

Section 0.114

Section 0.117

Lots"

Section 0.120

Operator"

Section 0.127

Section 0.132

Area"

Section 0.133

Section 0.140

Section 0.141

Section 0.147

Section 0.162

Section 0.164

Section 0.166

"Normal Farm Cultural

"Offroad Vehicle"

"Open Areas and Vacant

"Owner and/or

"Pave"

"PM-10 Nonattainment

"PM-10"

"Public Road"

"Reclaimed Water"

"Road Easement"

"Trench"

"Unpaved Parking Lot"

"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.

32276

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

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]

m 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.

32277

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 32277 2004