50936 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1See 62 FR 38856 (July 18, 1997). In 2008 we 

lowered the 8-hour ozone standard to 0.075 ppm. 

See 73 FR 16436 (March 27, 2008). The references 

in this proposed rule to the 8-hour standard are to 

the 1997 standard as codified at 40 CFR 50.10. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0693; FRL–8965–2] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans: 1-Hour Ozone 

Attainment Contingency Measures for 

the San Joaquin Valley, CA 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On July 14, 2009, EPA 

proposed to disapprove the attainment 

contingency measures in the extreme 

area plan for attainment of the 1-hour 

ozone standard in California’s San 

Joaquin Valley. EPA is now proposing to 

approve these contingency measures 

and to withdraw its proposed 

disapproval. This proposed approval is 

based on technical information 

provided to EPA by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

DATES: Comments must be submitted by 

November 2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2008–0693, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Agency Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. EPA prefers 

receiving comments through this 

electronic public docket and comment 

system. Follow the online instructions 

to submit comments. 

2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

online instructions. 

3. E-mail: wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

4. Mail or deliver: Ms. Marty Robin, 

Office of Air Planning (AIR–2), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 9, 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://www.regulations.gov, 

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://www.regulations.gov and in hard 

copy at EPA Region 9, 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: 

Frances Wicher, U.S. EPA Region 9, 

415–972–3957, Office of Air Planning 

(AIR–2), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901, 

wicher.frances@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA. 

I. Summary of EPA’s July 14, 2009 

Proposed Action on the SJV 1-Hour 

Ozone Plan 

On July 14, 2009 at 74 FR 33933, EPA 

proposed to approve in part and 

disapprove in part State implementation 

plan (SIP) revisions submitted to EPA 

by the State of California. California 

made these submittals to meet the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) requirements applicable 

to the San Joaquin Valley, California 

ozone nonattainment area (SJV area). 

The SJV area became subject to these 

requirements following its 2004 

reclassification from severe to extreme 

for the 1-hour ozone national ambient 

air quality standard (NAAQS). 69 FR 

20550 (April 15, 2004). In 1997, we 

revised the ozone NAAQS by lowering 

the level to 0.08 ppm and extending the 

averaging time to eight hours 1 and 

subsequently revoked the 1-hour ozone 

standard. The SJV area, however, 

remains subject to most of these CAA 

requirements for the 1-hour ozone 

standard through the anti-backsliding 

provisions in EPA’s rule implementing 

the 8-hour ozone standard (Phase 1 

Rule). See 40 CFR 51.905(a). 

EPA proposed to approve California’s 

1-hour ozone SIP submissions for the 

SJV area as meeting the applicable 1- 

hour requirements as provided under 

the CAA and interpreted in the Phase 1 

Rule for attainment demonstrations, 

rate-of-progress (ROP) demonstrations 

and related contingency measures, and 

other control requirements. EPA also 

proposed to disapprove the contingency 

measures that would take effect if the 

area failed to attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by the applicable attainment 

date. A complete discussion of EPA’s 

proposed actions is in the July 14, 2009 

proposal. 

The three SIP submissions that are the 

subject of our July 14, 2008 proposal 

are, first, the ‘‘Extreme Ozone 

Attainment Demonstration Plan’’ 

adopted by the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) in 

2004 and amended in 2005. We refer to 

the plan and its amendment, 

collectively, as the ‘‘2004 SIP’’ in this 

proposed rule. The 2004 SIP addresses 

CAA requirements for extreme 1-hour 

ozone areas including control measures, 

ROP and attainment demonstrations, 

and contingency measures. 

The second SIP submission addressed 

in the July 14 proposal, is 

‘‘Clarifications Regarding the 2004 

Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan’’ (2008 

Clarifications) adopted by the SJVAPCD 

in 2008. The 2008 Clarifications provide 

updates to the 2004 SIP related to 

reasonably available control technology 

(RACT) measures adopted by the 

SJVAPCD, the ROP demonstrations, and 

contingency measures. 

The third SIP submission addressed 

in the July 14 proposal is the ‘‘2003 

State and Federal Strategy for the 

California State Implementation Plan,’’ 

adopted by the California Air Resources 

Board (ARB) in October, 2003 (2003 

State Strategy). This strategy document, 

as modified by the ARB resolution 

adopting it, identifies ARB’s regulatory 

agenda to reduce ozone and particulate 

matter in California, including specific 

commitments to reduce emissions in the 

San Joaquin Valley. The 2004 SIP relies 

in part on the 2003 State Strategy for the 

reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment and ROP for the 1-hour 

ozone standard. A complete description 

of each of these SIP submittals can be 

found in the July 14, 2009 proposal. 

II. Contingency Measures 

A. Requirements for Contingency 

Measures for the 1-Hour Ozone 

Standard 

CAA sections 172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) 

require that SIPs contain contingency 

measures that will take effect without 

further action by the State or EPA if an 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 50937 

2See Memorandum from G.T. Helms, EPA, to 

EPA Air Branch Chiefs, Regions I–X, entitled ‘‘Early 

Implementation of Contingency Measures for Ozone 

and Carbon Monoxide (CO) Nonattainment Areas,’’ 

August 13, 1993. 

area fails to attain the ozone standard by 

the applicable date (section 172(c)(9)) or 

fails to meet a ROP milestone (section 

182(c)(9)). 

In 1992, EPA issued a General 

Preamble describing our preliminary 

views on how we intended to review 1- 

hour ozone plans submitted to meet 

these and other CAA requirements. See 

‘‘General Preamble for Implementation 

of Title I of the Clean Air Act 

Amendments of 1990.’’ 57 FR 13498 

(April 16, 1992). The General Preamble 

as well as other EPA guidance 

documents related to 1-hour ozone 

plans continue to guide our review of 

the 1-hour ozone requirements that 

remain applicable following revocation 

of that standard. 

The Act does not specify how many 

contingency measures are needed or the 

magnitude of emission reductions that 

must be provided by these measures. 

However, EPA provided initial guidance 

interpreting the contingency measure 

requirements in the General Preamble at 

13510. Our interpretation is based upon 

the language in sections 172(c)(9) and 

182(c)(9) in conjunction with the 

control measure requirements of 

sections 172(c), 182(b) and 182(c)(2)(B), 

the reclassification and failure to attain 

provisions of section 181(b) and other 

provisions. In the General Preamble, 

EPA indicated that States with moderate 

and above ozone nonattainment areas 

should include sufficient contingency 

measures so that, upon implementation 

of such measures, additional reductions 

of 3 percent of the emissions in the 

adjusted base year inventory (or such 

lesser percentage that will cure the 

identified failure) would be achieved in 

the year following the year in which the 

failure is identified. States may use 

reductions in either of the two 

precursors to ozone formation—volatile 

organic compounds (VOC) or nitrogen 

oxides (NOX)—to meet the contingency 

measure requirement. See General 

Preamble at 13520. States may also use 

a combination of NOX and VOC 

reductions to meet the requirement. See 

General Preamble at 13520, footnote 6. 

Finally, States must show that their 

contingency measures can be 

implemented with minimal further 

action on their part and with no 

additional rulemaking actions. 

In subsequent guidance, EPA stated 

that contingency measures could be 

implemented early, i.e., prior to the 

milestone or attainment date.2 Under 

this policy, States are allowed to use 

excess reductions from already adopted 

measures to meet the CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) contingency 

measures requirement. The key is that 

the CAA requires extra reductions that 

are not relied on for ROP or attainment 

and that will provide a cushion while 

the plan is being revised to fully address 

the failure. Nothing in the CAA 

precludes a State from implementing 

such measures before they are triggered. 

This approach has been approved by 

EPA in numerous SIPs. See 62 FR 15844 

(April 3, 1997); 62 FR 66279 (December 

18, 1997); 66 FR 30811 (June 8, 2001); 

66 FR 586 and 66 FR 634 (January 3, 

2001). In the only adjudicated challenge 

to this approach, the court upheld it. 

See LEAN v. EPA, 382 F.3d 575 (5th Cir. 

2004). 70 FR 71611, 71651. 

In 2004, EPA designated and 

classified most areas of the country 

under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. 

69 FR 23858 (April 30, 2004). At the 

same time, we issued the Phase 1 rule. 

69 FR 23951 (April 30, 2004). The Phase 

1 rule provided that the 1-hour ozone 

standard would be revoked in most 

areas of the country (including the SJV 

area), effective June 15, 2005. See 40 

CFR 50.9(b); 69 FR at 23996 and 70 FR 

44470 (August 3, 2005). 

The Phase 1 rule also set forth antibacksliding principles to ensure 

continued progress toward attainment of 

the 8-hour ozone standard by 

identifying which 1-hour ozone 

standard requirements remain 

applicable after revocation of that 

standard. 40 CFR 51.900(f). In the Phase 

I rule, EPA initially determined that 

contingency measures for the 1-hour 

ozone standard would not be required 

once the standard was revoked. See 70 

FR 30592 (May 26, 2005). However, the 

DC Circuit in South Coast Air Quality 

Management District, et al., v. EPA, 472 

F.3d 882 (DC Cir. 2006), rehearing 

denied 489 F.3d 1245 (2007), vacated 

the provision of the Phase 1 rule that 

waived the 1-hour contingency measure 

requirements. Consequently, areas 

subject to the anti-backsliding 

requirements, such as the SJV area, must 

continue to meet the CAA sections 

172(c)(9) and 182(c)(9) requirements. 

We have proposed to revise 40 CFR 

51.900(f), the regulatory definition of 

‘‘applicable requirement’’ for purposes 

of the anti-backsliding provisions in 40 

CFR 51. 905, in order to remove the 

vacated provision and to add language 

consistent with the Court’s holding that 

contingency measures for failure to 

attain or to make reasonable further 

progress toward attaining the 1-hour 

standard continue to apply in such 

areas. See 74 FR 2936 (January 16, 

2009). 

B. EPA’s July 14, 2009 Proposal on the 

Attainment Contingency Measures in 

the SJV 1-Hour Ozone Plan 

One-hour ozone nonattainment areas 

classified as extreme under CAA section 

181(b)(3) must demonstrate attainment 

‘‘as expeditiously as practicable’’ but 

not later than the date specified in CAA 

section 181(a), November 15, 2010. The 

2004 SIP contains a demonstration that 

the SJV area will attain the 1-hour ozone 

standard by that date. In our July 14, 

2009 proposed action on the 2004 SIP, 

we proposed to approve the attainment 

demonstration. 74 FR at 33942. The 

attainment contingency measure 

requirement calls for a showing that 

there are fully adopted contingency 

measures that will achieve emission 

reductions in excess of the levels 

needed for attainment and sufficient to 

provide continued ROP in the year after 

the attainment date, i.e., 3 percent 

reductions from the pre-1990 adjusted 

baseline in 2011 if triggered by a failure 

to attain. Table 4 in our July 14, 2009 

proposal reproduces the ROP 

demonstrations in the 2004 SIP. 74 FR 

at 33941. Based on the 2010 adjusted 

baseline in this ROP demonstration, an 

additional 3 percent in the year after the 

attainment year equates to 

approximately 15.3 tpd of VOC or 20.7 

tpd of NOX with NOX substitution. 

Table 5 in the July 14, 2009 proposal 

shows that there are no excess 

reductions from adopted measures in 

the 2004 SIP’s attainment demonstration 

and that, in addition to the adopted 

measures that make significant 

reductions toward attainment, the plan 

relies on commitments to adopt 

measures to achieve the additional 

reductions needed to demonstrate 

attainment. However, Table 6 in the July 

14 proposal shows that there are 10 tpd 

NOX and 5 tpd VOC in reductions in 

2011 from adopted and creditable onroad mobile source measures that could 

serve to fulfill a portion of the 

attainment contingency measure 

requirement. These amounts 

collectively provide just a 2.4 percent 

rate of progress in 2011, short of the 

suggested 3 percent. 

The SJV 1-hour ozone plan did not 

provide any information on post-2010 

emission reductions in any source 

category other than on-road motor 

vehicles. 

Based on the information available to 

EPA at the time of the July 14, 2009 

proposal, the State had not 

demonstrated that there were sufficient 

excess reductions to satisfy the 

attainment contingency measure 

requirement. We therefore proposed to 

disapprove the attainment contingency 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
50938 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

3ARB uses the term ‘‘reactive organic gases’’ 

(ROG) in its documents. For the purposes of this 

proposed rule, VOC and ROG are interchangeable. 

4Because this proposed action supplements our 

July 14, 2009 proposal, the docket number, EPA– 

R09–OAR–2008–0693, for both proposed actions is 

the same. 

5Under CAA sections 209(a) and (e)(1), States are 

pre-empted from adopting or enforcing emission 

standards for both on-road or non-(off-) road new 

vehicles and new vehicle engines. Under CAA 

section 209(b) and (e)(2), California must be granted 

a waiver of this pre-emption upon certain findings 

by EPA although we may not waive pre-emption for 

locomotives and for certain new construction or 

agricultural engines. See CAA section 209(e)(1). 

6Tier 2 and 3 non-road engines standards, 63 FR 

56968 (October, 23, 1998). 

7Locomotive standards, 63 FR 18978 (May 16, 

1998). 

measures provision in the SJV 1-hour 

ozone plan as not meeting the 

requirements of CAA section 172(c)(9). 

See 74 FR at 33944. We stated in that 

proposal that the State could remedy 

this failure by submitting either new 

contingency measures or a 

demonstration that existing creditable 

measures provide, consistent with the 

guidance cited above, sufficient 

emission reductions in 2011. Id. 

C. Additional Information Submitted by 

California 

In an August 28, 2009 letter, ARB 

provided information on the effect on 

emission levels in the SJV area of fleet 

turnover in the off-road mobile source 

category. ARB also provided a 

demonstration that these emission 

reductions, combined with the 

reductions in the on-road mobile source 

sector, are more than the 3 percent of 

adjusted base inventory emissions 

suggested by EPA guidance, and that 

these reductions are not relied upon to 

satisfy rate of progress and attainment 

demonstration requirements. See letter, 

James Goldstene, ARB, to Marty Robins, 

EPA (Goldstene letter). We have 

reproduced ARB’s demonstration, 

contained in the attachment to the 

Goldstene letter, in Table 1 below. 

TABLE 1—EMISSION REDUCTIONS AVAILABLE TO SATISFY THE CLEAN AIR ACT CONTINGENCY MEASURE REQUIREMENT

FOR ‘‘FAILURE TO ATTAIN’’ 

[San Joaquin Valley, Summer Season] 

Line NOX ROG 3

A. 1990 Adjusted Baseline Emissions in 2010 (Note 1) ................................................................................. 689 509 

B. Emission Reductions from California’s Existing On-road Motor Vehicle Emission Control Program 

(2010 to 2011) (Note 2) ............................................................................................................................... 10 5 

C. Emission Reductions from California’s Existing Off-road Equipment Emission Control Program (2010 to 

2011) ............................................................................................................................................................ 5.7 3.6 

D. Total Mobile Source Emission Reductions (2010–2011) ........................................................................... 16 9 

E. Mobile Source Emission Reductions as a Percent of the 1990 Adjusted Baseline Emissions in 2010 .... 2.3% 1.7% 

F. Total Mobile Source Emission Reductions as a Percent of the 1990 Adjusted Baseline Emissions in 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................................. 4.0% 

Note 1. From Table 2 ‘‘San Joaquin Valley Rate of Progress’’ in the 2008 Clarification. 

Note 2. From Table 3 ‘‘Baseline Motor Vehicle Emissions 2000–2010’’ in the 2008 Clarification. 

The reductions in the off-road engine 

category were taken from baseline 

emission inventories developed as 

inputs to the air quality modeling 

supporting the attainment 

demonstration in the 2004 SIP. These 

baseline emission inventories include 

reductions only from measures adopted 

prior to September 2002; therefore, the 

estimate of emission reductions from 

the off-road engines category reflect 

only these measures. See e-mail, Jeff 

Lindberg, ARB, to Frances Wicher, EPA, 

‘‘2011 Off-Road Emission Estimates for 

the San Joaquin Valley’s 1-hour Ozone 

Plan,’’ September 10, 2009. 

By 2002, California already had in 

place a comprehensive off-road mobile 

source control program that included 

both VOC and NOX emissions standards 

for lawn and garden equipment, 

recreational boats, off-road recreational 

vehicles, and many other off-road 

engine categories. A list of ARB’s 

adopted off-road measures can be found 

in Table 15 of the technical support 

document (TSD) for our July 14, 2009 

proposal.4 California has been granted a 

waiver or has applied for a waiver under 

CAA section 209 for these measures 5

and/or the California emission limits are 

identical or very similar to EPA 

regulations. EPA had also adopted by 

September 2002 measures that reduce 

emissions from new construction and 

farm equipment and locomotives that 

apply in California.6 7 As described in 

our July 14, 2009 proposal, emission 

reductions from both section 209 waiver 

measures and Federal measures are fully 

creditable for contingency measures. 

See 74 FR at 33936, 33938. 

As shown in Table 1 above, creditable 

State and Federal on-road and off-road 

measures provide a combined 4 percent 

rate of progress in 2011 which is more 

than the 3 percent ROP suggested in 

EPA guidance on contingency measures. 

Therefore, we propose to approve the 

attainment contingency measures 

provision in the SJV 1-hour ozone plan 

as meeting the requirements of CAA 

section 172(c)(9) and the antibacksliding requirements of EPA’s 

Phase 1 implementation rule and to 

withdraw our July 14, 2009 proposed 

disapproval of this provision. 

III. Summary of Proposed Action 

Based on our review of the additional 

information provided by ARB, we are 

proposing to approve the contingency 

measure provisions in the SJV 1-hour 

ozone plan as meeting the requirements 

of CAA section 172(c)(9) for 

contingency measures that must be 

implemented if an area fails to attain by 

its attainment date. We are also 

proposing to withdraw our July 14, 2009 

proposed disapproval of these 

contingency measures. 

These proposals to approve and 

withdraw address only the contingency 

measures provision for failure to attain 

in the SJV 1-hour ozone plan. The 

public comment period for the July 14, 

2009 proposal closed on August 31, 

2009. 74 FR 40123 (August 11, 2009). 

EPA is not reopening the comment 

period on any other aspects of its July 

14, 2009 proposed action on the SJV 

1-hour ozone plan. Therefore, comments 

in response to the proposals herein must 

be limited to issues related to the 

proposed approval of the attainment 

contingency measures in the SJV 1-hour 

ozone plan and the proposed 

withdrawal of the July 14, 2009 

proposed disapproval of these measures. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 190 / Friday, October 2, 2009 / Proposed Rules 50939 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

either review by the Office of 

Management and Budget or to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). 

This action merely proposes to 

approve a portion of a State-adopted 

attainment plan for the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Basin and withdraw a 

previous proposal and does not impose 

any additional requirements. 

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 

that this proposed action 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 

proposed action does not impose any 

additional enforceable duties, 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 proposed action does not have 

Tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the plan is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State. It will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law. 

This proposed 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 

proposed action merely proposes to 

approve a portion of a State-adopted 

plan and does not alter the relationship 

or the distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

Executive Order 12898 establishes a 

Federal policy for incorporating 

environmental justice into Federal 

agency actions by directing agencies to 

identify and address, as appropriate, 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

of their programs, policies, and 

activities on minority and low-income 

populations. Today’s action involves a 

proposed approval of a State-adopted 

plan. It will not have disproportionately 

high and adverse effects on any 

communities in the area, including 

minority and low-income communities. 

This proposed action 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. 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 

proposed action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 23, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–23796 Filed 10–1–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 55 

[EPA–R02–OAR–2009–0680; FRL–8965–1] 

Outer Continental Shelf Air 

Regulations Consistency Update for 

New Jersey 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to update a 

portion of the Outer Continental Shelf 

(OCS) Air Regulations Requirements 

applying to OCS sources located within 

25 miles of states’ seaward boundaries 

which must be promulgated into the 

regulations and updated periodically to 

remain consistent with the requirements 

of the corresponding onshore area 

(COA), as mandated by section 328(a)(1) 

of the Clean Air Act (CAA). The portion 

of the OCS air regulations that is being 

updated pertains to the requirements for 

OCS sources in the State of New Jersey. 

The intended effect of approving the 

OCS requirements for the State of New 

Jersey is to regulate emissions from OCS 

sources in accordance with the 

requirements onshore. The requirements 

discussed below are proposed to be 

incorporated by reference into the Code 

of Federal Regulations and are listed in 

the appendix to the OCS air regulations. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R02–OAR–2009–0680, by one of the 

following methods: 

A. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

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

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments; 

B. E-Mail: riva.steven@epa.gov; 

C. Mail: Steven Riva, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 2, Air Programs Branch, 290 

Broadway, New York, NY 10007; 

D. Hand Delivery: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 2, Attn: 

Steven Riva, 290 Broadway, New York, 

NY 10007, 25th Floor. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during normal hours 

of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R02–OAR–2009– 

0680. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, 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 www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The http:// 

www.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 

www.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. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

Although listed in the index, some 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with PROPOSALS