70734 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

Dated: November 10, 2005. 

M.R. DeVries, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Western Alaska. 

[FR Doc. 05–23235 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ARCHITECTURAL AND 

TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS 

COMPLIANCE BOARD 

36 CFR Parts 1190 and 1191 

[Docket No. 02–1] 

RIN 3014–AA26 

Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) 

Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings 

and Facilities; Architectural Barriers 

Act (ABA) Accessibility Guidelines; 

Public Rights-of-Way 

AGENCY: Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board. 

ACTION: Notice of availability of draft 

guidelines. 

SUMMARY: The Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board (Access Board) has placed in the 

docket and on its Web site for public 

review draft guidelines which address 

accessibility in the public right-of-way. 

The draft guidelines are under 

consideration by the Board. The 

purpose of placing the draft guidelines 

in the docket is to facilitate gathering of 

additional information for the regulatory 

assessment and the preparation of 

technical assistance materials to 

accompany a future rule. The Board is 

not seeking comments on the draft 

guidelines. The Board will issue a 

notice of proposed rulemaking at a 

future date and will solicit comments at 

that time, prior to issuing a final rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Windley, Office of Technical and 

Information Services, Architectural and 

Transportation Barriers Compliance 

Board, 1331 F Street, NW., suite 1000, 

Washington, DC 20004–1111. 

Telephone number (202) 272–0025 

(voice); (202) 272–0082 (TTY). 

Electronic mail address: 

windley@access-board.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In 1999, 

the Architectural and Transportation 

Barriers Compliance Board (Access 

Board) established the Public Rights-ofWay Access Advisory Committee 

(Committee) to make recommendations 

on accessibility guidelines for newly 

constructed and altered public rights-ofway covered by the Americans with 

Disabilities Act of 1990 and the 

Architectural Barriers Act of 1968. The 

Committee was comprised of 

representatives from disability 

organizations, public works 

departments, transportation and traffic 

engineering groups, design professionals 

and civil engineers, pedestrian and 

bicycle organizations, Federal agencies, 

and standard-setting bodies. The 

Committee met on five occasions 

between December 1999 and January 

2001. On January 10, 2001, the 

Committee presented its 

recommendations on accessible public 

rights-of-way in a report entitled 

‘‘Building a True Community.’’ The 

Committee’s report provided 

recommendations on access to 

sidewalks, street crossings, and other 

related pedestrian facilities and 

addressed various issues and design 

constraints specific to public rights-ofway. The report is available on the 

Access Board’s Web site at http:// 

www.access-board.gov/prowac/ 

commrept/index.htm or can be ordered 

by calling the Access Board at (202) 

272–0080. Persons using a TTY should 

call (202) 272–0082. The report is 

available in alternate formats upon 

request. Persons who want a copy in an 

alternate format should specify the type 

of format (cassette tape, braille, large 

print, or ASCII disk). 

The Access Board convened an ad hoc 

committee of Board members to review 

the Committee’s recommendations. 

After reviewing the report in detail, the 

Board’s ad hoc committee prepared 

recommendations for guidelines 

addressing accessibility in the public 

right-of-way. On June 17, 2002, the 

Board made the recommendations of the 

ad hoc committee available for public 

comment and review by notice in the 

Federal Register (67 FR 41206). 

Over 1,400 comments were received 

from the public in response to the 

publication of the draft. Of this total, 

almost 900 comments were from 

persons with disabilities and groups 

representing them; the great 

preponderance of comments in this 

category came from people who 

indicated that they were blind or had 

low vision. Respondents from the 

transportation industry, including 

design engineers and consultants, 

submitted slightly over 200 comments. 

Another 100 were received from State 

and local government administrative 

agencies. Comments are posted on the 

Board’s Web site at http://www.accessboard.gov/prowac/comments/ 

index.htm. Further discussion of the 

comments received is available in the 

supplementary information 

accompanying the draft guidelines. 

The members of the Board’s ad hoc 

committee subsequently reviewed and 

considered the comments received in 

response to the 2002 Federal Register 

notice. The draft guidelines made 

available today on the Board’s Web site 

are the result of those deliberations. The 

Access Board is making the draft 

guidelines available in order to facilitate 

the gathering of additional information 

for a regulatory assessment prior to 

publishing a notice of proposed 

rulemaking and to assist in the 

development of technical assistance 

materials. The Board is not soliciting 

comments on the draft guidelines. The 

Board will solicit comments when a 

proposed rule is issued in conjunction 

with the regulatory assessment. The 

draft guidelines along with 

supplementary information have been 

placed in the rulemaking docket (Docket 

No. 02–1) for public review. The draft 

guidelines and supplementary 

information are also available on the 

Access Board’s Web site at http:// 

www.access-board.gov/prowac/ 

draft.htm. You may also obtain a copy 

of the draft guidelines and 

supplementary information by 

contacting the Access Board at (202) 

272–0080. Persons using a TTY should 

call (202) 272–0082. The documents are 

available in alternate formats upon 

request. Persons who want a copy in an 

alternate format should specify the type 

of format (cassette tape, braille, large 

print, or ASCII disk). 

Lawrence W. Roffee, 

Executive Director. 

[FR Doc. 05–23161 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8150–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R09–OAR–2005–CA–0006; FRL–7998–4] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Imperial and 

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution 

Control Districts 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District (ICAPCD) and Santa Barbara 

County Air Pollution Control District 

(SBCAPCD) portions of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we 

are approving local rules that are 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 70735 

administrative and address changes for 

clarity and consistency. 

DATES: This rule is effective on January 

23, 2006 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comments by 

December 23, 2005. If we receive such 

comments, we will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register to 

notify the public that this direct final 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [DOCKET 

NUMBER], by one of the following 

methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the on-line instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

3. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through the 

agency Web site, eRulemaking portal or 

e-mail. The agency Web site and 

eRulemaking portal are ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ systems, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send e-mail 

directly to EPA, your e-mail address 

will be automatically captured and 

included as part of the public comment. 

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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is available electronically at 

http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in 

hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed in the index, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material), and some may 

not be publicly available in either 

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

copy materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, allen.cynthia@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. Public comment and final action. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules we are 

approving with the dates that they were 

adopted by the local air agencies and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

ICAPCD ................................................................ 101 Definitions ............................................................. 01/11/05 04/26/05 

SBCAPCD ............................................................. 102 Definitions ............................................................. 01/20/05 04/26/05 

On June 3, 2005, these rule submittals 

were found to meet the completeness 

criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, 

which must be met before formal EPA 

review. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

We approved versions of these rules 

into the SIP on the dates listed: ICAPCD 

Rule 101 on March 7, 2003 and 

SBCAPCD Rule 102 on July 23, 2004. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

Imperial County Rule 101 is amended 

by adding new definitions, revising 

some existing definitions, and deleting 

obsolete definitions. New and revised 

definitions for Rule 424, Architectural 

Coatings, are added into Rule 101. 

Santa Barbara Rule 102 is amended by 

revising the definition of reactive 

organic compounds to exempt methyl 

acetate and perchloroethylene. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

states to submit regulations that control 

volatile organic compounds, oxides of 

nitrogen, particulate matter, and other 

air pollutants which harm human health 

and the environment. These rules were 

developed as part of the local agency’s 

program to control these pollutants. 

EPA’s technical support document 

has more information about these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

These rules describe administrative 

provisions and definitions that support 

emission controls found in other local 

agency requirements. In combination 

with other requirements, these rules 

must be enforceable (see section 110(a) 

of the Act) and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). EPA policy that we used to help 

evaluate enforceability requirements 

consistently includes the Bluebook 

(‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988) and 

the Little Bluebook (‘‘Guidance 

Document for Correcting Common VOC 

& Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 

9, August 21, 2001). 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. The TSD has more 

information on our evaluation. 

C. Public comment and final action. 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rules because we believe they 

fulfill all relevant requirements. We do 

not think anyone will object to this 

approval, so we are finalizing it without 

proposing it in advance. However, in 

the Proposed Rules section of this 

Federal Register, we are simultaneously 

proposing approval of the same 

submitted rules. If we receive adverse 

comments by December 23, 2005, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register to notify the public 

70736 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 

that the direct final approval will not 

take effect and we will address the 

comments in a subsequent final action 

based on the proposal. If we do not 

receive timely adverse comments, the 

direct final approval will be effective 

without further notice on January 23, 

2006. This will incorporate these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

Please note that if EPA receives 

adverse comment on an amendment, 

paragraph, or section of this rule and if 

that provision may be severed from the 

remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt 

as final those provisions of the rule that 

are not the subject of an adverse 

comment. 

III. 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 

Clean Air Act. This rule also is not 

subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This rule does 

not impose an information collection 

burden under the provisions of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as added by 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 

generally provides that before a rule 

may take effect, the agency 

promulgating the rule must submit a 

rule report, which includes a copy of 

the rule, to each House of the Congress 

and to the Comptroller General of the 

United States. EPA will submit a report 

containing this rule and other required 

information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. 

House of Representatives, and the 

Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

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

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

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 23, 2006. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: October 26, 2005. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(336)(i)(C) and (D) 

to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(336) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) Imperial County Air Pollution 

Control District. 

(1) Rule 101, adopted on January 11, 

2005. 

(D) Santa Barbara County Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 102, adopted on January 20, 

2005. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 05–23090 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[R06–OAR–2005–TX–0016; FRL–8000–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Permits by Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: On September 28, 2005 (70 

FR 56566), EPA published a direct final 

rule to approve a State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revision for the State of 

Texas. This action removed a provision 

from the Texas SIP which provided 

public notice for concrete batch plants 

which were constructed under a permit