# + 2

(,1 1/,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 520.446 is amendedby removing paragraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2); by redesignating paragraphs (a)(3) and (b)(3)

asparagraphs (a)(2) and (b)(2);in paragraph (b)(1) byremoving "No. 000009" and by adding in its place "Nos. 000009 and 059130"; and in newly redesignated paragraph (b)(2)by removing "(a)(3)" andby adding in its place "(a)(2)."

Dated: May 19, 2004. Steven D.Vaughn, Director,Office of NewAnimalDrug Evaluation,CenterforVeterinary 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 ofimplementation 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 ofthe
event dueto the confined nature ofthe waterway and anticipated congestion at the time ofthe event, thus providing for the safety oflife and property on the affected navigable waters.

DATES: The regulations in 33 CFR 100.101 will be enforced from 9:30 a.m.
onJune 12, 2004, until 5p.m onJune 13, 2004.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Petty Officer Austin Nagle, Office of Search and Rescue, FirstCoast 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 5p.m. on June 12, 2004, with a rain date ofJune 13, 2004, iftheregatta is postponed due
to inclement weather.

A portion ofthe Thames River in New London, Connecticut will be closed duringthe event to all vessel traffic except participants, official regatta vessels, patrol craft and spectators as prescribed by theregulation. The regulated area is that area ofthe 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 ofthis regulation isfound in 33 CFR 100.101.

Dated: May 27, 2004. Vivien S. Crea,
Rear Admiral,

### U.S. CoastGuard,Commander, FirstCoastGuard District. [FR Doc. 04-12964 Filed 6-8-04; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4910-15-P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52 [NV-040-0075; FRL-7663-4]

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Finalrule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the serious

area particulate matter (PM-10)plan for the Las Vegas Planning Area that addresses attainment ofthe 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 byClark County (County).
DATES: Effective Date:July 9, 2004. ADDRESSES: You caninspect copies of the administrative record for this action
atEPA's Region IX office during normal business hours by appointment. You

caninspect copies ofthe submitted SIP revisions by appointment atthe following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), 75 Hawthorne Street, SanFrancisco, CA 94105-3901; Clark County Department ofAir Quality

Management, 500 S. Grand Central Parkway, Las Vegas, NV 89155; Nevada Division ofEnvironmental 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'sRegion 9 Web Page athttp:// www.epa.gov/region09/air.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: KarenIrwin, Office ofAir 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 ofToday's Actions II.Public Comments and EPA Responses III. Background to Today's Actions

A.Prior PMPlanning Activities in Clark

County B.Serious Area Planfor theLas Vegas Area IV. Other RelatedAction in the Las Vegas Area V.FinalActions VI.Administrative Requirements

I. Summary ofToday's Actions

We are approving the PM-10State ImplementationPlan forClarkCounty ("Clark County Serious Area Plan" or "Plan"), submitted on July 23, 2001.1 The Plan addresses attainment ofthe annual and 24-hour PM-10 standards.2 This action isbased on our determination thatthis Plan complies with the CAArequirements for serious PM-10 nonattainment area plans.

First, we are approving the following specific elements ofthe Plan:

* Ademonstration thatthe Plan provides for implementation ofbest available control measures (BACM); 3

'On November 19, 2002, the NevadaDivision of Environmental Protection submitted to EPA an amendment to the Plan adopted by the Clark County Board ofCommissioners on November 19, 2002. The amendment establishes new deadlines for SIPcommitments concerning revisions to Sections 90through 94 and adds documentation on adoptedlocal ordinances for fireplaces and woodstoves as Appendix R ofthe Plan. EPA approved theseordinances in a separate action. 68 FR 52838 (Sept. 8, 2003).

2PM-10 is particulate matter withan aerometric
diameter ofless than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers. There are two separate NAAQS for PM-10, an annual standard of50 pg/m 3 and a 24- hour standard of150 g/m 3

.

3Because the demonstration of BACM subsumes the demonstration ofReasonably Available Control Measures (RACM), a separate analysis to determine ifthe measures represent a RACM level ofcontrol is notnecessary. The BACM demonstration, therefore, is alsoa finding that the Plan provides forthe implementation ofRACM 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 ofthe Annual and 24-Hour PM-10

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. Standards 

### 32273

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 32273 200432274 Federal Register/Vol. 69, No. 111/Wednesday, June 9, 2004/Rules and Regulations

* An emissions inventory; * A demonstration ofattainment of the annual standard by the CAA deadline ofDecember 31, 2001 and a demonstration that attainment ofthe 24- hour standard byDecember 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 ofanother state or achieved in practice in another state and that canbe feasibly implemented in the
area;

* A demonstration that major sources ofPM-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 ofSection 0), 4 as well

as specific commitments bythe County and local jurisdictions within the County toimplement 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 isbased on our determination that the State has met the CAA's criteria for granting such extensions.

This preamble describes our actions

onthe Clark County Serious Area Plan. We have not repeated the evaluation of the Plan thatwe provided in the proposal for today's action. See 68 FR 2954, January 22, 2003.

4The Plan included the November 16, 2000, versions ofthese rules. OnOctober 24, 2002, the Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection submitted to EPA revised versions ofClark 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 0beingapproved are the November 16, 2000 versions. The County has since adopted revisions to these rules and EPA will review and
act on thesechanges ina separate rulemaking. II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

EPA's proposed actionprovided 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 allcomments canbe found in our Response to Comments Document that accompanies this final action. A copy ofthis document canbe downloaded from our website or obtained by calling or writing the
contact person listed above.

III. Background to Today's Action

A. Prior PMPlanning Activities in Clark County

The 1977 Amendments to the CAA required States torevise their SIPs for all areas that did not meet the NAAQS. At thattime, EPA's particulate matter NAAQS were measured in terms oftotal suspended particulates (TSP). The Las Vegas Valley was designated nonattainment for TSP. As a result, Nevada submitted, andEPA approved, a nonattainment area plan and a series of revisions with state andlocal control

measures. See 46 FR 21758 (April 14, 1981), 46 FR 43141 (August 27, 1981) and47 FR 26386 (June 18, 1982).

In 1987, EPA promulgated NAAQS for PM-10, 52 FR 24643 (July 1, 1987), and the approach bywhich 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 tomeet 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 andthat 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 andretained the TSP designations in place atthe 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 oflaw on November 15, 1990-the enactment date ofthe 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. Section 188(a) ofthe amended Act further required that all areas designated nonattainment by operation oflawbe classified as moderate nonattainment

areas. Thus,EPA designated Clark County a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area.See 56 FR 11101 (March15,1991) (announcing designation of areas) and 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991) (codifying designations). CAA section 189(a)(2) required moderate areas designated by operation oflawto 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 bythe applicable moderate area attainment date ofDecember 31, 1994, and therefore should be reclassified to a serious PM-10 nonattainment area. 58 FR 3334 (January8, 1993). EPA concluded that implementation ofthe 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 foundthat a substantial portion ofPM10 emissions in the area were due to fugitive dust and additional controls wouldbe required. Id.

Reclassification to a seriousPM-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 thatthe area would attain the PM-10 NAAQS by a new attainment date ofDecember 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, foundthis attainment demonstration, along with previously submittedplans for RACM and BACM,5failed to meet the requirements ofthe CAA and therefore proposed to disapprove these submittals. 65 FR 37324 (June 14, 1998). Prior to EPA takingfinal 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 ofEnvironmental Protection, Nevada Department ofConservation, to Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator,

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 ofBest Available Control Measures and BestAvailable Control Technology to Improve PM-10 Air Quality" (1994 BACM Plan).

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 32274 2004Federal 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 ofnonsubmittal" for failure to submit the required PM-10 plans. See 66 FR 1046. This finding was made effective December 20, 2000, andbegan an 18- month "clock" for mandatory application ofsanctions and a 2-year clock for promulgation ofa Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in accordance with CAA section 179. Id. Under the sanctions clock, mandatory sanctions (i.e.,tighter offset ratios for

new andmodified major sources and, six months later, highway funding restrictions) would be imposed unless anduntil EPAfound the State had made

a "complete" submittal ofa plan addressing the applicable PM-10 requirements for the Las Vegas Valley. See id. at 1047 (citing40 CFR 52.31 and CAA section 179). Under the FIP clock, EPA was to promulgate a FIP in place ofa SIP unless and until EPA approved

a SIP for the area. 6 CAA section 110(c)(1).

B. Serious AreaPlan fortheLas Vegas Area

Following EPA's proposed disapproval ofthe 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 andvacant 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 ofdefinitions related to fugitive dust control measures. These rules provide thebackbone for the Clark County Serious Area Plan, which was adopted by the Clark County Board of Commissioners onJune 19, 2001.8 The

6While the FIP Clock expired in December 2002,
EPA pursued review and approval ofthe SIP submitted in 2001 rather than preparation ofa FIP. Today's approval removes the obigation to prepare

a FIP forthe area.

7 These new fugitive dustrules generally supplement the existing PM-10 measures previously approved intothe SIPin 1981 and 1982. The two exceptions are: (1) Section 17 ("Permission
to Disturb Topsoil"), which is beingremoved from the SIPby this action andreplaced with the new Sections 90through 94; and (2) the definitions in sections 1.35 ("Fugitive Dust") and 1.64 ("Off-road Vehicle"), which are beingreplaced by the new definitions in Sections 0.70 and 0.114, respectively.

8In 2001, the Clark County Department of Air Quality Management (DAQM) was created to handle both the permitting and enforcement functions ofthe Clark County Health District along with the planning functions previously managed by Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection submitted Sections 90 through 94 and Section 0, along with the June 19, 2001, Plan to EPA on July 25, 2001. 9 OnJanuary 11, 2002, we determined the conformity budgets in the Plan were adequate (67 FR 1461) and onJanuary 22, 2003, we proposed approval ofthe Plan andthe associated rules (68 FR 2954). The Technical SupportDocument associated with our proposed approval is available onEPA's Web site.

The Plan supports the County's strategy offocusing controls on sources offugitive dust. The Plan includes a detailed inventory ofPM-10 emissions in the nonattainment area anduses modeling and monitoring datato 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 bythe statutory deadline ofDecember 31, 2001. The Plan further demonstrates that the County has adopted control

measures meeting the CAA requirements for BACM andMSM and that implementation ofthese measures will result in reductions in the inventory ofemissions to levels that

ensure the area will attain the 24-hour standard bythe extended attainment date ofDecember 31, 2006. The Plan alsoincludes demonstrations of reasonable further progress between

now and the 2006 attainment deadline,

a demonstration ofthe need for an extension, a description ofcontingency

measures and enforceable commitments, andmotor vehicle emissions budgets for ensuring transportation projects conform to the Plan.

We received comments on several aspects ofthe Plan and ourresponses 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 ofthe shifting organization ofthe local air agencies, we refer generally to the "County" forboth the newDAQM and its predecessor agencies.

9OnOctober 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 Planregarding SIP commitment deadlines and adoption oflocal ordinances. proposal thatthe rules and Plan comply with the requirements ofthe Act and reasonably support the County's demonstration of attainment.

IV. Other Related Action in the Las VegasArea

In addition to working on this PM-10 Plan andthe associated fugitive dust rulemakings, the County is in the
process ofupdating 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 (andportions of Section 0). These regulations will ensure thatnew and modified major sources ofPM-10 and other nonattainment criteria pollutants will be subject to offset and control requirements. In addition EPAis in the final stages ofreviewing the Las Vegas carbon monoxide (CO) attainment plan. EPA proposed approval ofthis 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 willbe reviewed to ensure consistency with today's action.

V. Final Actions

With this final action, we are incorporating by reference the following portions ofthe Clark County Serious AreaPlan forthe 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 andJthatthe Plan provides for implementation ofBACM

as required under CAA section 189(b)(1)(B).

(2)The baseline and projected emissions inventories provided in Chapter 3 and Appendices B throughE and L as required under CAA section 172(c)(3).

(3)The demonstration in Chapters 5 and 7of attainment ofthe annual standard bythe CAA deadline of December 31, 2001 andthat attainment ofthe 24-hour standard byDecember 31, 2001 is impracticable asrequired under CAA section 189(b)(1)(A).

(4) The demonstration in Chapter 7 and Appendix Athat attainment ofthe 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 thatthe Plan includes MSM asrequired under CAA section 188(e). 

### 32275

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

(6) The demonstration in Chapter 4 that major sources ofPM-10 precursors such as nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide do not significantly contribute
to violations ofthe PM-10 standards as required under CAA section 189(e). (7) The demonstration in Chapter 5 andAppendix 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 ofspecific local measures as follows: (1)We are approving into the SIP Clark County Sections 90, 91, 92 and 93, adopted onNovember 20, 2001, which supersede earlier versions submitted in Appendix G ofthe Plan. (2)We are approving the following portions ofSection 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 thatthe motor vehicle emissions budgets were adequate by letter from Jack Broadbent,EPA, to Allen Biaggi, Nevada Division ofEnvironmental Protection, November 9, 2001. Public notice ofEPA's adequacy determination was provided on January 11, 2002 (67FR 1461).

11

ClarkCounty included all ofSection 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 andVacant

"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, section4.8.

(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 isnot subject toreview bythe Office ofManagement and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 32111, "Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, orUse" (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This actionmerely approves state law asmeeting federal requirements andimposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies thatthis rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5U.S.C. 601 etseq.). 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 oruniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (PublicLaw 104-4).

This rule also does not have tribal implications because itwill 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 andIndian 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 ofpower and responsibilities among the various levels ofgovernment, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This actionmerely approves a state plan and rules implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution ofpower and responsibilities established in the Clean AirAct. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 "Protection of Childrenfrom Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks" (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because itis 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 ofa prior existing requirement for the State touse voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. Itwould thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when itreviews a SIP submission,
to use VCS in place ofa SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements ofsection 12(d) ofthe National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does
notimpose an information collection burden under the provisions ofthe Paperwork Reduction Act of1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 etseq.).

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 etseq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of1996, generally provides thatbefore a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rulereport, which includes a copy ofthe rule, to each House ofthe Congress and to the Comptroller General ofthe United States. EPAwill submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House ofRepresentatives, and the Comptroller General ofthe United States prior to publication ofthe rule in the Federal Register.A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it ispublished in the FederalRegister. 

### 32276

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 32276 2004Federal 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) ofthe Clean Air Act, petitions forjudicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by August 9, 2004. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does
not affect the finality ofthisrule for the
purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of suchrule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (Seesection 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting andrecordkeeping requirements.

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 3, 2004. Wayne Nastri, RegionalAdministrator, RegionIX.
* Part52, chapter I,title40 ofthe Code ofFederal 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 amendedby addingparagraphs (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 onJune 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 onJuly 23, 2001, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A)Clark County Department ofAir Quality Management.

(1)PM-10 State Implementation Plan for Clark County including: Chapter 3, Chapter 4 (excluding pages 4-125 and 4-126), Chapters 5through 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 ofpages 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, andAppendices 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 byreference. (A)Clark County Department ofAir Quality Management.

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

onNovember 20, 2001.

(44)The following plan amendments

were submitted on November 19, 2002, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation byreference. (A)Clark County Department ofAir 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 ofVirginia;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 ofVirginia 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 ofthe Metropolitan Washington, D.C. Ozone Nonattainment Area (NorthernVirginia Area). EPAis approving this revision to the Commonwealth ofVirginia SIP in accordance with the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act (CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on August 9, 2004 without further notice, unless EPAreceives adverse written comment by July 9, 2004. IfEPA receives such comments, it willpublish a timely withdrawal ofthe direct final rule in the FederalRegister andinform thepublic thatthe rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by VA149-5076 by one ofthe following methods:

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:/ /www.regulations.gov.Followthe online instructions for submitting
comments.

B. E-mail:morris.makeba@epa.gov. C. Mail:Makeba Morris, Chief,Air Quality Planning BranchName, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

D. HandDelivery:Atthe previouslylisted EPARegion III address. Such deliveries are only accepted duringthe Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries ofboxed information.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. VA149-5076. EPA's policy is that all comments received willbe 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 submitinformation thatyou consider tobe CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or email. The Federal regulations.gov Web site is an "anonymous access" system, which means EPA will notknow your identity or contact information unless
you provide it inthe body ofyour comment. Ifyou send an e-mail
comment directly to EPAwithout going through regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part ofthe comment thatisplaced in the public docket and made available on the Internet. Ifyou submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends thatyou includeyour

name and other contact information in the body ofyour comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. IfEPA
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, andbe free ofany defects or viruses. 

### 32277

HeinOnline -- 69 Fed. Reg. 32277 2004