Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 37945 

[FR Doc. E9–18024 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2008–0592(a); FRL–8937– 

2] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans— 

Alabama: Birmingham 1997 8-Hour 

Ozone Contingency Measures 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve revisions to the 

Alabama State Implementation Plan 

(SIP), submitted by the Alabama 

Department of Environmental 

Management (ADEM), on February 6, 

2008, to adopt contingency measures in 

the form of permit conditions for two 

cement kilns. These contingency 

measures are for the maintenance of the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) in 

Jefferson and Shelby Counties 

(‘‘Birmingham Area’’). On May 12, 2006, 

EPA approved the 8-hour ozone 

redesignation of the Birmingham Area 

from nonattainment to attainment for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS (see, 71 

FR 27631). Additional measures may be 

necessary in the future; however, these 

revisions qualify as contingency 

measures as required under Section 

175A(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

When the Birmingham Area was 

redesignated to attainment, Alabama 

was also required to submit a 

maintenance plan which included 

provisions for contingency measures 

should the Area violate the standard 

after being redesignated to attainment. 

The May 12, 2006, maintenance plan 

was designed to keep the Birmingham 

Area in attainment through 2017, 

initially, with a later extension of the 

maintenance plan to include a time 

period of no less than 20 years after the 

Area was redesignated originally. After 

attaining the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard based on 2003–2005 ambient 

air monitoring data, the Birmingham 

Area violated the standard with 2004– 

2006 ambient air monitoring data. The 

February 6, 2008, SIP revision, provided 

by Alabama for EPA approval, was 

submitted to fulfill ADEM’s 

commitment to adopt within 18 months 

of a violation of the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard, one or more contingency 

measures to help the Area re-attain the 

standard. EPA is approving these 

revisions pursuant to section 110 of the 

CAA. On March 27, 2008, EPA issued a 

revised ozone standard (see, 73 FR 

16436). This action, however, is being 

taken to address requirements under the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. EPA will 

address the Birmingham compliance 

with the 2008 8-hour ozone standard in 

the future. 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

September 28, 2009 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

comment by August 31, 2009. If EPA 

receives such comment, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2008–0592 by one of the following 

methods: 

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

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: benjamin.lynorae@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008– 

0592,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. 

Lynorae Benjamin, Chief, Regulatory 

Development Section, Air Planning 

Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008– 

0592.’’ 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 

through http://www.regulations.gov or 

e-mail, information that you consider to 

be CBI or otherwise protected. 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 http:// 

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. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the 

electronic docket are listed in the 

http://www.regulations.gov index. 

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 http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. EPA 

requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the person listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

schedule your inspection. The Regional 

Office’s official hours of business are 

Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Stacy Harder, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 

Harder may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9042, or by electronic mail at 

harder.stacy@epa.gov. For information 

relating to the Alabama SIP, contact Mr. 

Zuri Farngalo by phone at (404) 562– 

9152, or by electronic mail at 

farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
37946 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Analysis of State’s Submission 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On April 15, 2004, EPA designated 

the Birmingham Area as nonattainment 

for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard 

under title 1, part D, subpart 1 of the 

CAA. For the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard the Birmingham Area is 

comprised of Jefferson and Shelby 

Counties in Alabama. EPA’s 

designations for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard were published in the Federal 

Register on April, 30 2004, (69 FR 

23858) and became effective on June 15, 

2004. As an area designated as 

nonattainment for the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard under Subpart 1 of the 

CAA, the Birmingham Area had a 

required attainment date of ‘‘as 

expeditiously as practicable’’ but no 

later than June 15, 2009. 

On November 16, 2005, after air 

quality data indicated improvements, 

ADEM submitted a request for EPA to 

redesignate the Birmingham Area to 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. Also, as required, ADEM 

submitted for EPA approval, the initial 

maintenance plan to show continued 

maintenance for the first 11 years of the 

20 year maintenance period. ADEM’s 

redesignation request was based on 

three years, 2003 to 2005, of ambient 

monitoring data for the Birmingham 

Area, which indicated the Birmingham 

Area had a design value of 0.072 parts 

per million (ppm). The design value for 

the Birmingham Area based on 2004– 

2006 was 0.078 ppm. Both the 2003– 

2005 and the 2004–2006 design values 

met the requirement of 0.080 ppm for 

attainment for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

standard. 

In an action published on January 25, 

2006, (71 FR 4077), EPA proposed to 

approve the redesignation of the 

Birmingham Area to attainment. EPA 

also proposed approval of the State’s 

plan for maintaining the 1997 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS through the initial period 

of 2006–2017 as a SIP revision. ADEM 

submitted a final, adopted SIP revision 

and redesignation request to EPA on 

January 27, 2006. On May 12, 2006, EPA 

published a final rule in the Federal 

Register (71 FR 27631), effective June 

12, 2006, which approved the 

redesignation request and changed the 

legal designation of Jefferson and Shelby 

Counties in Alabama from 

nonattainment to attainment for the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard. This rule 

also approved ADEM’s 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan for the 1997 standard 

for the Birmingham Area pursuant to 

section 175A of the CAA. 

Section 175A of the CAA, requires a 

maintenance plan to become part of the 

SIP for areas redesignated to attainment 

and provide for maintenance of the air 

quality in the affected area for at least 

20 years after the redesignation. 

Specifically, the CAA requirement is 

that an initial maintenance plan that is 

at least 10 years in length (i.e., after 

EPA’s expected approval) be submitted 

with the redesignation request. 

Subsequently, eight years after 

redesignation and submittal of the 

initial maintenance plan, the State is 

required to submit an additional 

maintenance plan that shows continued 

maintenance for the remainder for a 20- 

year period. Alabama chose 2017 as the 

end year for the initial maintenance 

plan for the Birmingham Area. Also 

included in Alabama’s initial 

maintenance plan were contingency 

provisions as required by section 175(d) 

of the CAA. The purpose of the 

contingency provisions is to provide for 

prompt corrections for any violation of 

the standard that occurred in an area 

that was redesignated from 

nonattainment to attainment. 

In its May 12, 2006, maintenance 

plan, Alabama committed to adopt 

within 18 months of a violation of the 

1997 8-hour ozone standard, one or 

more control measures to help the area 

reattain the standard. The plan stated 

that the State of Alabama would use 

actual ambient monitoring as the 

indicator or trigger to determine when 

these contingency measures would be 

implemented. In accordance with 40 

CFR 58, ambient ozone monitoring data 

that indicates a future violation of the 

ozone NAAQS will begin the process to 

implement contingency measures. In the 

event that an individual monitor in the 

nonattainment area recorded an annual 

fourth high reading of 0.085 ppm or 

higher, or if periodic emissions 

inventory updates revealed excessive or 

unanticipated growth greater than 10 

percent in emission of either ozone 

precursor, ADEM agreed in the May 12, 

2006, maintenance plan that the State 

would evaluate existing control 

measures to determine whether any 

further emission reduction measures 

should be implemented. Under Section 

175A(d), the minimum requirements for 

these contingency measures required 

the implementation of all measures that 

were contained in the SIP before the 

redesignation. 

The Helena monitor, located in 

Shelby County and typically the 

controlling monitor for the Birmingham 

Area, violated the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS during 2004–2006 data with a 

reading of 0.085 ppm, although the 

overall design value for the Birmingham 

Area for that same period was 0.078 

ppm. Under Section 175A(d), the 

minimum requirements for these 

contingency measures require the 

implementation of all measures that 

were contained in the SIP prior to the 

redesignation. Alabama has maintained 

all measures that were contained in the 

SIP prior to the redesignation. Also, in 

accordance with requirements of the 

CAA, Alabama committed to adopt one 

or more contingency measures within 

18 months of a violation of the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard, in order to 

reattain the standard. To help correct 

the violation, Alabama evaluated and 

subsequently identified nitrogen oxide 

(NOX) controls for installation at two 

facilities in the Birmingham Area. More 

information on Alabama’s analysis is 

provided below. Additional measures 

may be necessary in the future; 

however, these revisions qualify as 

contingency measures under the 

requirements of Section 175A(d) of the 

CAA. 

II. Analysis of State Submission 

On February 6, 2008, Alabama 

submitted a SIP revision to EPA for 

approval to incorporate into the SIP 

specific contingency measures to help 

the Birmingham Area attain the 1997 

8-hour ozone standard. Specially, the 

February 6, 2008, submittal provided for 

controls at Lehigh Cement in Jefferson 

County and Lafarge Building Materials 

in Shelby County. After an extensive 

study in the early 1990s, for ozone 

formation in the Birmingham Area, 

Alabama concluded the best focus was 

on a reduction on NOX emissions as 

opposed to Volatile Organic 

Compounds. 

Both the Lehigh Cement facility in 

Jefferson County and the Lafarge 

Building Materials facility in Shelby 

County operate cement kilns that 

combust coal and utilize low NOX

burners to minimize emissions. The 

Lehigh kiln is a preheater type kiln 

while the Lafarge kiln is a preheater/ 

precalciner kiln. NOX is generated in the 

kilns during combustion through the 

oxidation of fuel-bound nitrogen (fuel 

NOX) and by the oxidation of 

atmospheric nitrogen (thermal NOX). 

NOX control can be achieved by 

minimizing the creation of NOX in the 

combustion device (i.e., low NOX

burners) and by the addition of add-on 

controls. Selective Noncatalytic 

Reduction (SNCR) is a post-combustion 

(add-on) technology that was installed, 

and is based on the chemical reduction 

of NOX into molecular nitrogen (N2) and 

water vapor (H20). A nitrogen based 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 37947 

reducing agent (reagent), such as 

ammonia or urea, is injected into the 

post-combustion flue gas. The reduction 

reactions that occur due to the operation 

of the SNCR reduce the amount of NOX

emitted into the atmosphere. 

Alabama’s February 6, 2008, SIP 

revision requests to include specific 

provisos into the SIP related to the 

permits for the Lafarge and Leigh 

cement kilns. Specifically, Alabama is 

including the following for 

incorporation into the SIP, which can be 

found in Appendix A of the submittal: 

Lafarge: Fuel Processing & Handling 

Cement Kiln & Clinker Cooler Area 300: 

Emissions Standards: 15 & 16. 

Compliance and Performance Test 

Methods and Procedures: 10. 

Emissions Monitoring: 8, 9, & 10. 

Recordkeeping and Reporting 

Requirements: 8. 

Lehigh: Emissions Unit No. 005 = 

Rotary Kiln 

Permit Conditions: 45–48. 

The permit conditions for the cement 

kiln (Emissions Unit No. 5) at Lehigh 

Cement and the cement kiln at Lafarge 

were adopted in early 2008 after a 

public comment period for these 

revisions. Specifically, the public 

comment period for the Lafarge permit 

revisions was September 19 through 

October 19, 2007. The public comment 

period for the Lehigh permit revisions 

was July 23 through August 21, 2007. 

The revised permits can be found in 

Appendix A of Alabama’s February 6, 

2008, SIP revision. 

According to ADEM’s February 6, 

2009 submittal, it is projected that an 

overall NOX reduction of 20–25 percent 

is expected from the two plants as a 

result of the installation of the SNCR. 

Specifically, 2009 ozone season NOX

emissions were projected to be 

approximately 1,149 and 651 tons from 

Lehigh and Lafarge, respectively. 

Therefore, it is expected that the 

installation of the SNCRs should result 

in an approximate ozone season NOX

reduction of 360–450 tons. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is taking direct final action to 

approve specific permit conditions for 

two cement kilns in the Birmingham 

Area as implemented contingency 

measures. The specific conditions were 

provided to fulfill ADEM’s requirement 

to address a violation of the 1997 8-hour 

ozone standard for the Birmingham 

Area. After careful evaluation, EPA has 

determined that ADEM’s submittal 

meets the applicable requirements of the 

CAA and EPA regulations, and is 

consistent with EPA policy. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a non-controversial 

revision and anticipates no adverse 

comments. However, in the proposed 

rules section of this Federal Register 

publication, EPA is publishing a 

separate document that will serve as the 

proposal to approve the SIP revision 

should adverse comment be filed. This 

rule will be effective on September 28, 

2009 without further notice unless the 

Agency receives adverse comment by 

August 31, 2009. If EPA receives such 

comments, then EPA will publish a 

document withdrawing the final rule 

and informing the public that the rule 

will not take effect. All public 

comments received will then be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on the proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this action. Any parties interested in 

commenting must do so at this time. If 

no such comments are received, the 

public is advised this rule will be 

effective on September 28, 2009 and no 

further action will be taken on the 

proposed rule. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves Alabama law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• 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); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In 

addition, this rule does not have tribal 

implications as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), because the SIP is not approved 

to apply in Indian country located in the 

state, and EPA notes that it will not 

impose substantial direct costs on tribal 

governments or preempt tribal law. 

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 action 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 CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by September 28, 2009. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
37948 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 145 / Thursday, July 30, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed rulemaking. 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, Intergovernmental 

relations, Incorporation by reference, 

Ozone, Nitrogen dioxides, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: July 16, 2009. 

J. Scott Gordon, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 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 B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(d), is amended by 

adding new entries to the table for 

‘‘Lafarge Cement Kiln’’ and ‘‘Lehigh 

Cement Kiln’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ALABAMA SOURCE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS

Name of source Permit No. 

State submittal 

date/effective 

date 

EPA approval date Explanations 

Lafarge Cement Kiln ............ AB70004_1_01 .................... 2/6/2008 7/30/2009 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Certain provisions of the permit. 

Lehigh Cement Kiln ............. 4–07–0290–03 .................... 2/6/2008 7/30/2009 [Insert citation of 

publication].

Certain provisions of the permit. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–18026 Filed 7–29–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–0296; FRL–8936–6] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions were proposed in 

the Federal Register on June 8, 2009 

and concern volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from organic solvent 

cleaning and degreasing operations. We 

are approving local rules that regulate 

these emission sources under the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on August 31, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–0296 for this 

action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov 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: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On June 8, 2009 (74 FR 27084), EPA 

proposed to approve the following rules 

into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule 

No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVAPCD ................................................. 4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing Operations .................................. 09/20/07 03/07/08 

SJVAPCD ................................................. 4663 Organic Solvent Cleaning, Storage, and Disposal ................... 09/20/07 03/07/08 

We proposed to approve these rules 

because we determined that they 

complied with the relevant CAA 

requirements. Our proposed action 

contains more information on the rules 

and our evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rules comply with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving these rules 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES