Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57511 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This rule contains no new 

information collection requirements 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Commission, in accordance with 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 

606(b)), has reviewed this regulation 

and by approving it certifies that this 

regulation will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local, or tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1610 

Freedom of Information. 

For the Commission. 

Cari M. Dominguez, 

Chair. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, EEOC amends 29 CFR 

part 1610 as follows: 

PART 1610—AVAILABILITY OF 

RECORDS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 1610 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2000e–12(a), 5 U.S.C. 

552 as amended by Pub. L. 93–502, Pub. L. 

99–570, and Pub. L. 105–231; for § 1610.15, 

non-search or copy portions are issued under 

31 U.S.C. 9701. 

■ 2. Section 1610.1 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (e) through (i) as 

follows: 

§ 1610.1 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(e) Direct costs refers to those 

expenses that EEOC actually incurs in 

searching for and duplicating (and, in 

the case of commercial requesters, 

reviewing) records to respond to a 

request. Direct costs include, for 

example, the salary of the employee 

performing the work (the basic rate of 

pay for the employee plus 16 percent of 

that rate to cover benefits) and the cost 

of operating duplicating machinery. Not 

included in direct costs are overhead 

expenses such as costs of space and 

heating or lighting of the facility in 

which the records are stored. 

(f) Search refers to the time spent 

looking for and retrieving material that 

is responsive to a request. It includes 

page-by-page or line-by-line 

identification of information within 

documents and also includes reasonable 

efforts to locate and retrieve information 

from records maintained in electronic 

formats. EEOC employees should ensure 

that searching for materials is done in 

the most efficient and least expensive 

manner reasonably possible. For 

example, employees shall not search 

line-by-line when merely duplicating a 

document would be quicker and less 

expensive. 

(g) Duplication refers to the process of 

making a copy of a record or document 

necessary to respond to a FOIA request. 

Such copies can take the form of paper 

copy, microform, audio-visual materials, 

electronic formats (for example 

magnetic tape or disk), among others. 

Employees shall honor a requester’s 

specified preference of format of 

disclosure if the record is readily 

reproducible with reasonable efforts in 

the requested format by the office 

responding to the request. 

(h) Attestation refers to the 

authentication of copies of Commission 

documents by an affidavit or unsworn 

declaration from the records custodian 

without the Commission Seal. 

(i) Certification refers to the 

authentication of copies of Commission 

documents by an affidavit or unsworn 

declaration from the records custodian 

under the Commission Seal. 

■ 3. Section 1610.15(c) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1610.15 Schedule of fees and method of 

payment for services rendered. 

* * * * * 

(c) Except as otherwise provided, the 

following specific fees for direct costs 

shall be applicable with respect to 

services rendered to members of the 

public under this subpart: 

(1) For manual search and review 

time: 

(i) By clerical personnel—at the rate 

of $5.00 per quarter hour. 

(ii) By paralegals—at the rate of $9.00 

per quarter hour. 

(iii) By professional personnel—at the 

rate of $10.00 per quarter hour. 

(iv) By managers—at the rate of 

$17.50 per quarter hour. 

(v) By SES employees—at the rate of 

$20.00 per quarter hour. 

(2) For computer searches of records, 

requesters will be charged at the actual 

direct cost of providing the service. This 

includes the operator/programmer 

salary apportionable to the search based 

on the rates listed in paragraph (c)(1) of 

this section. 

(3) For copies made by photocopy—

$0.15 per page (maximum of 10 copies). 

For copies prepared by computer, such 

as tapes or printouts, EEOC will charge 

the direct cost incurred by the agency, 

including operator time. For other forms 

of duplication, EEOC will charge the 

actual costs of that duplication. 

(4) For attestation of documents—

$25.00 per authenticating affidavit or 

declaration. Additionally, there may be 

search and review charges assessed in 

accordance with the rates listed in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(5) For certification of document—

$50.00 per authenticating affidavit or 

declaration. Additionally, there may be 

search and review charges assessed in 

accordance with the rates listed in 

paragraph (c)(1) of this section. 

(6) For each signed statement of 

negative result of search for record—

$10.00. Additionally, there may be 

search charges assessed in accordance 

with the rates listed in paragraph (c)(1) 

of this section. 

(7) For retrieval of records from a 

Federal Records Center—the amount 

charged to EEOC for retrieval of such 

records. 

(8) All other direct costs of search, 

review, duplication or delivery (other 

than normal mail), shall be charged to 

the requester as appropriate in the same 

amount as incurred by the agency. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–19649 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6570–01–U 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[Region 2 Docket No. R02–OAR–2005–NY–

0003, FRL–7971–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; New York State 

Implementation Plan Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency is approving a revision to the 

New York State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) concerning New York’s permitting 

program. The SIP revision consists of 

amendments to Title 6 of the New York 

Code, Rules and Regulations, Part 201, 

‘‘Permits and Certificates.’’ The 

intended effect of this approval is to 

incorporate administrative changes to 

New York’s permitting program into the 

SIP. 

57512 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

DATES: This rule will be effective 

November 2, 2005. 

ADDRESSES: A copy of the New York 

submittal is available at the following 

addresses for inspection during normal 

business hours: 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2 Office, Air Programs Branch, 

290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, 

New York 10007–1866. 

New York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, Division 

of Air Resources, 625 Broadway, 

Albany, New York 12233. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kirk 

J. Wieber, Air Programs Branch, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 290 

Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New 

York 10007–1866, (212) 637–3381 or 

Wieber.Kirk@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What Was Included in New York’s 

Submittal? 

On June 16, 1996, David Sterman, 

then Deputy Commissioner, New York 

State Department of Environmental 

Conservation (NYSDEC), submitted to 

EPA a revision to the State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) which 

included revisions to Title 6 of the New 

York Codes, Rules and Regulations 

(NYCRR), Part 201, ‘‘Permits and 

Certificates.’’ The revisions to Part 201 

were submitted by New York in support 

of its Title V Operating Permit Program 

under the Clean Air Act (Act), and 

became State effective on July 7, 1996. 

New York requested at that time that 

Subparts 201–1, 201–2, 201–3, 201–4, 

201–5, 201–7, 201–8 and Appendix B be 

incorporated into the federally approved 

SIP, replacing the existing federally 

approved version of Part 201. EPA has 

deferred taking action on those revisions 

to Part 201 due to unresolved concerns 

raised by the EPA and NYSDEC 

regarding specific Subparts. However, 

on May 27, 2005, Carl Johnson, Deputy 

Commissioner, NYSDEC, submitted a 

SIP revision requesting EPA’s approval 

of only Subparts 201–7.1, ‘‘General’’ and 

201–7.2, ‘‘Emission Capping Using 

Synthetic Minor Permits,’’ as were State 

effective on July 7, 1996, and the 

removal of Subpart 201.5(e) of the 

existing federally approved version of 

Part 201. On July 21, 2005 (70 FR 

42021), EPA proposed to approve 

revised Subparts 201–7.1 and 201–7.2 

into the federally approved New York 

SIP and remove existing Subpart 

201.5(e) from the federally approved 

New York SIP. For a detailed discussion 

on the content and requirements of the 

revisions to New York’s regulations, the 

reader is referred to EPA’s proposed 

rulemaking action. 

II. What Comments Did EPA Receive in 

Response to Its Proposal? 

In response to EPA’s July 21, 2005 

proposed rulemaking action, EPA 

received no adverse comments. 

III. What Is EPA’s Conclusion? 

EPA has evaluated New York’s 

submittal for consistency with the Act, 

EPA regulations, and EPA policy. EPA 

has determined that the revisions made 

to Part 201–7, ‘‘Federally Enforceable 

Emission Caps,’’ specifically the 

inclusion of Subparts 201–7.1, 

‘‘General’’ and 201–7.2, ‘‘Emission 

Capping Using Synthetic Minor 

Permits’’ meet the SIP revision 

requirements of the Act. In addition, 

EPA has determined that existing 

Subpart 201.5(e) should no longer be 

included in the federally approved SIP. 

Therefore, EPA is approving revised 

Subparts 201–7.1 and 201–7.2 into the 

federally approved New York SIP and 

removing existing Subpart 201.5(e) from 

the federally approved New York SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is 

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ and 

therefore is not subject to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget. For 

this reason, this action is also not 

subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action merely approves 

state law as meeting federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule approves pre-existing requirements 

under state law and does not impose 

any additional enforceable duty beyond 

that required by state law, it does not 

contain any unfunded mandate or 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments, as described in the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4). 

This rule also does not have tribal 

implications because it will not have a 

substantial direct effect on one or more 

Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

action also does not have federalism 

implications because it does not have 

substantial direct effects on the states, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the states, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

approves a state rule implementing a 

federal standard, and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

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 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 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. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by December 2, 2005. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 190 / Monday, October 3, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 57513 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: September 12, 2005. 

Alan J. Steinberg, 

Regional Administrator, Region 2. 

■ 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 HH—New York 

■ 2. Section 52.1670 is amended by 

adding new paragraph (c)(109) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.1670 Identification of plans. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

* * * * * 

(109) Revisions to the State 

Implementation Plan submitted on June 

16, 1996 and May 27, 2005, by the New 

York State Department of 

Environmental Conservation, which 

consist of administrative changes to 

Title 6 of the New York Code, Rules and 

Regulations, Part 201, ‘‘Permits and 

Certificates.’’

(i) Incorporation by reference: 

(A) Regulations Subparts 201–7.1, 

‘‘General’’ and 201–7.2, ‘‘Emission 

Capping Using Synthetic Minor 

Permits’’ of Part 201–7, ‘‘Federally 

Enforceable Emission Caps’’ of Title 6 of 

the New York Code of Rules and 

Regulations (NYCRR), filed on June 7, 

1996, and effective on July 7, 1996. 

■ 3. In 52.1679, the table is amended by 

revising the entry under Title 6 for Part 

201 and adding new entries under Title 

6 for Subparts 201–7.1 and 201–7.2, in 

numerical order to read as follows: 

§ 52.1679 EPA—approved New York State 

regulations. 

New York State regulation State effective date Latest EPA approval date Comments 

Title 6: 

* * * * * * * 

Part 201, ‘‘Permits and Certificates’’ .......................................... 4/4/93 10/3/05 [Insert FR page 

citation] 

This action removes subpart 

201.5(e) from the State’s federally approved SIP. 

Subpart 201–7.1, ‘‘General’’ ...................................................... 7/7/96 10/3/05 [Insert FR page 

citation] 

Subpart 201–7.2, ‘‘Emission Capping Using Synthetic Minor 

Permits’’.

7/7/96 10/3/05 [Insert FR page 

citation] 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–19712 Filed 9–30–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[OAR–2002–0084; FRL–7978–4] 

RIN 2060–AN38 

National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants for 

Secondary Aluminum Production 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule; amendments. 

SUMMARY: On March 23, 2000, EPA 

promulgated national emission 

standards for hazardous air pollutants 

(NESHAP) for secondary aluminum 

production under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA), and on December 

30, 2002, we published final 

amendments to the standards based on 

two separate settlement agreements. 

This amendment corrects a punctuation 

error in the definition of ‘‘clean charge’’

previously promulgated in the 

December 30, 2002 amendments and a 

typographical error in the operating 

temperature of a scrap dryer/ 

delacquering kiln/decoating kiln 

afterburner. We are making the 

amendment by direct final rule, without 

prior proposal, because we view the 

revision as noncontroversial and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the Proposed Rules section 

of this Federal Register, we are 

publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to amend the 

national emission standards for 

secondary aluminum production, if 

adverse comments are filed. 

If we receive any adverse comments 

on the direct final rule, we will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

amendments are being withdrawn due 

to adverse comment. We will address all 

public comments in a subsequent final 

rule based on the proposed rule. If we 

do not receive adverse comment on the 

direct final rule, it will become effective 

on the date set out below. We will not 

institute a second comment period on 

the direct final rule. Any parties 

interested in commenting must do so at 

this time. 

DATES: The direct final rule will be 

effective on December 2, 2005 without 

further notice, unless EPA receives 

adverse written comments by November 

2, 2005 or by November 17, 2005 if a 

public hearing is requested. If EPA 

receives such comments, it will publish 

a timely withdrawal in the Federal 

Register indicating that the rule is being 

withdrawn due to adverse comment. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. OAR–2002–

0084, by one of the following methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Agency Web site: http://www.epa.gov/ 

edocket. EDOCKET, EPA’s electronic 

public docket and comment system, is 

EPA’s preferred method for receiving 

comments. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov and 

colyer.rick@epa.gov.