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 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 225 / Wednesday, November 23, 2005 / Rules and Regulations 70737 

by rule (PBR). The direct final action 

was published without prior proposal 

because EPA anticipated no adverse 

comment. EPA stated in the direct final 

rule that if EPA received adverse 

comment by October 28, 2005, EPA 

would publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register. EPA subsequently 

received a timely adverse comment on 

the direct final rule. Therefore, EPA is 

withdrawing the direct final approval. 

EPA will address the comment in a 

subsequent final action based on the 

parallel proposal also published on 

September 28, 2005 (70 FR 56612). As 

stated in the parallel proposal, EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. 

DATES: The direct final rule published 

on September 28, 2005 (70 FR 56566) is 

withdrawn as of November 23, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stanley M. Spruiell, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7212; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

spruiell.stanley@epa.gov. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 15, 2005. 

Lawrence E. Starfield, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 05–23216 Filed 11–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[OPP–2005–0175; FRL–7722–6] 

Tralkoxydim; Pesticide Tolerance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a 

tolerance for residues of tralkoxydim in 

or on barley grain, barley hay, barley 

straw, wheat grain, and wheat hay, 

wheat forage, and wheat straw. 

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc. 

requested this tolerance under the 

Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

(FFDCA), as amended by the Food 

Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA). 

DATES: This regulation is effective 

November 23, 2005. Objections and 

requests for hearings must be received 

on or before January 23, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: To submit a written 

objection or hearing request follow the 

detailed instructions as provided in 

Unit VI. of the SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION. EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket 

identification (ID) number OPP–2005–

0175. All documents in the docket are 

listed in the EDOCKET index at http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed 

in the index, some information is not 

publicly available, i.e., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

is not placed on the Internet and will be 

publicly available only in hard copy 

form. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 

copy at the Public Information and 

Records Integrity Branch (PIRIB), Rm. 

119, Crystal Mall #2, 1801 S. Bell St., 

Arlington, VA. This docket facility is 

open from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The docket telephone number 

is (703) 305–5805. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim 

Tompkins, Registration Division 

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001; telephone number: 

(703) 305–5697; e-mail 

address:Tompkins.Jim@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. Potentially 

affected entities may include, but are 

not limited to: 

• Crop production (NAICS 111), e.g., 

agricultural workers; greenhouse, 

nursery, and floriculture workers; 

farmers. 

• Animal production (NAICS 112), 

e.g., cattle ranchers and farmers, dairy 

cattle farmers, livestock farmers. 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS 311), 

e.g., agricultural workers; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; ranchers; pesticide applicators. 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

32532), e.g., agricultural workers; 

commercial applicators; farmers; 

greenhouse, nursery, and floriculture 

workers; residential users. 

This listing is not intended to be 

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide 

for readers regarding entities likely to be 

affected by this action. Other types of 

entities not listed in this unit could also 

be affected. The North American 

Industrial Classification System 

(NAICS) codes have been provided to 

assist you and others in determining 

whether this action might apply to 

certain entities. If you have any 

questions regarding the applicability of 

this action to a particular entity, consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

B. How Can I Access Electronic Copies 

of this Document and Other Related 

Information? 

In addition to using EDOCKET (http:// 

www.epa.gov/edocket/), you may access 

this Federal Register document 

electronically through the EPA Internet 

under the ‘‘Federal Register’’ listings at 

http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. A 

frequently updated electronic version of 

40 CFR part 180 is available at E-CFR 

Beta Site Two at http:// 

www.gpoaccess.gov/ecfr/. 

II. Background and Statutory Findings 

In the Federal Register of June 22, 

2005 (70 FR 36162) (FRL–7715–6), EPA 

issued a notice pursuant to section 

408(d)(3) of FFDCA, 21 U.S.C. 

346a(d)(3), announcing the filing of a 

pesticide petition (PP 6F4631) by 

Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc., P.O. Box 

18300, Greensboro, NC, 27419–8300. 

The petition requested that 40 CFR 

180.548 be amended by establishing a 

tolerance for residues of the herbicide 

tralkoxydim, 2-(Cyclohexen-1-one, 2-[1- 

(ethoxyimino)propyl]-3-hydroxy-5- 

(2,4,6-trimethylphenyl)-(9Cl), in or on 

barley grain, barley hay, wheat grain, 

and wheat hay at 0.02 parts per million 

(ppm) and barley straw, wheat forage, 

and wheat straw at 0.05 ppm. That 

notice included a summary of the 

petition prepared by Syngenta Crop 

Protection, Inc., the registrant. 

Public comments were received from 

B. Sachau who objected to the ‘‘sale or 

marketing’’ of this product. She asserted 

that the registrant’s statement in the 

notice of filing that ‘‘it is unlikely’’ that 

secondary residues would occur in 

animal commodities is not a ‘‘strong 

enough’’ standard. B. Sachau’s 

comments contained no scientific data 

or evidence to rebut the Agency’s 

conclusion that there is a reasonable 

certainty that no harm will result from 

aggregate exposure to tralkoxydim, 

including all anticipated dietary 

exposures and all other exposures for 

which there is reliable information. EPA 

has determined that there is no 

reasonable expectation of dietary risk 

due to residues of tralkoxydim 

occurring in meat, milk, poultry, or eggs