Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40747 

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 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 October 13, 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 

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, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: July 28, 2009. 

Walter W. Kovalick Jr, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

■ 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 KK—Ohio 

■ 2. Section 52.1870 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(147) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(147) On October 5, 2007, Ohio 

submitted revisions to Ohio 

Administrative Code Chapter 3745–112, 

Rules 3745–112–01 through 3745–112– 

08. The revisions regulate the volatile 

organic compounds content of 

consumer products. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule 

3745–112–01 ‘‘Definitions.’’, Rule 3745– 

112–02 ‘‘Applicability.’’, Rule 3745– 

112–03 ‘‘Standards.’’, Rule 3745–112–04 

‘‘Exemptions.’’, Rule 3745–112–05 

‘‘Administrative requirements.’’, Rule 

3745–112–06 ‘‘Reporting 

requirements.’’, Rule 3745–112–07 

‘‘Variances.’’, and Rule 3745–112–08 

‘‘Test methods.’’, adopted September 5, 

2007, effective on September 15, 2007. 

(B) September 5, 2007, ‘‘Director’s 

Final Findings and Orders’’, signed by 

Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

[FR Doc. E9–19305 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0591; FRL–8941–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Pennsylvania; Revised Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets for the York-Adams 

Counties 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. The revision amends the 

8-hour ozone maintenance plan for the 

York-Adams Counties 8-Hour Ozone 

Maintenance Area (the Area). This 

revision amends the maintenance plan’s 

2009 and 2018 motor vehicle emissions 

budgets (MVEBs) by unequally dividing 

the existing approved MVEBs which 

covers the entire maintenance area into 

two sub-regional MVEBs, one set of 

MVEBs for each county comprising the 

area. The revised plan continues to 

demonstrate maintenance of the 8-hour 

national ambient air quality standard 

(NAAQS) for ozone. EPA is approving 

this SIP revision to the Pennsylvania 

maintenance plan for York-Adams in 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on October 

13, 2009 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse written comment 

by September 14, 2009. If EPA receives 

such comments, it will publish a timely 

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the 

Federal Register and inform the public 

that the rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID Number EPA– 

R03–OAR–2008–0591 by one of the 

following methods: 

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

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

B. E-mail: febbo.carol@epa.gov. 

C. Mail: EPA–R03–OAR–2008–0591, 

Carol Febbo, Chief, Energy, Radiation 

and Indoor Environment Branch, 

Mailcode 3AP23, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. 

D. Hand Delivery: At the previouslylisted EPA Region III address. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Docket’s normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R03–OAR–2008– 

0591. 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 http:// 

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. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
40748 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 

during normal business hours at the Air 

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 

19103. Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental 

Protection, Bureau of Air Quality, P.O. 

Box 8468, 400 Market Street, Harrisburg, 

Pennsylvania. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin Kotsch, (215) 814–3335, or by 

e-mail at kotsch.martin@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. Summary of Pennsylvania’s SIP Revision 

and EPA’s Review 

III. Final Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On January 14, 2008 (73 FR 2163) 

EPA redesignated the York-Adams 

Counties area of Pennsylvania to 

attainment for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS. For the York-Adams Counties 

area, the redesignation included 

approval of an 8-hour ozone 

maintenance plan, which identifies onroad MVEBs for Volatile Organic 

Compounds (VOCs) and Nitrous Oxides 

(NOX), which are ozone precursors, 

which are then used for transportation 

planning and conformity purposes. 

There are two separate metropolitan 

planning organizations (MPOs), in this 

maintenance area, one in each county, 

with individual responsibility for doing 

transportation conformity for their 

respective county. Pennsylvania has 

unequally divided the existing MVEBs 

and created sub-regional MVEBs for 

each county to better accommodate the 

transportation planning and conformity 

processes within the Area. 

II. Summary of Pennsylvania’s SIP 

Revision and EPA’s Review 2009 and 

2018 Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

On May 23, 2008, the State of 

Pennsylvania submitted to EPA a formal 

revision to its State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). The SIP revision proposes 

MVEBs that reflect the unequal division 

of the existing MVEBs for the 

maintenance area. The divided MVEBs 

continue to ensure maintenance of the 

NAAQS for ozone for the York-Adams 

area. The following table lists the 

previously approved MVEBs and the 

proposed reallocation of the MVEBs into 

sub-regional budgets for the YorkAdams Counties area. 

YORK-ADAMS AREA REALLOCATION OF THE MVEBS INTO SUB-REGIONAL BUDGETS

CURRENT MVEBS IN THE APPROVED MAINTENANCE PLAN—BOTH COUNTIES

[Tons/day] 

2004 

Base year 

2009 

Projection 

2018 

Projection 

VOC ............................................................................................................................................. 16.1 15.9 9.0 

NOX .............................................................................................................................................. 26.4 22.8 10.0 

PROPOSED MVEBS IN THE REVISED MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR BOTH COUNTIES

[Tons/day] 1

2009 

Budget 

2018 

Budget 

Adams County 

VOC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 3.84 2.34 

NOX .......................................................................................................................................................................... 4.87 2.54 

York County 

VOC ......................................................................................................................................................................... 12.09 6.72 

NOX .......................................................................................................................................................................... 17.96 7.50 

1 Due to rounding, the new reallocated budgets, if combined, are insignificantly higher then the previously approved mobile budgets for the entire area. This slight difference will still ensure maintenance of the 8-hour ozone attainment as the combined MVEBs are still lower then the attainment year budgets. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2009 

and 2018 MVEBs for VOCs and NOX

emissions listed above in Table 1 as the 

new MVEBs for transportation 

conformity planning. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving Pennsylvania’s May 

23, 2008 SIP revision submittal which 

amends the 8-hour ozone maintenance 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 40749 

plans for the York-Adams area. This 

revision unequally divides the 

previously approved 2009 and 2018 

MVEBs to create sub-regional MVEBs 

for the two counties comprising the 

area. EPA is approving this SIP revision 

to the maintenance plan for the Area 

because the May 23, 2008 submittal 

continues to demonstrate maintenance 

of the 8-hour ozone NAAQS with the 

aggregated sub-regional MVEBs. EPA is 

publishing this rule without prior 

proposal because the Agency views this 

as a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipates no adverse comment, since 

no significant adverse comments were 

received on the SIP revision at the State 

level. However, in the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, EPA 

is publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

SIP revision if adverse comments are 

filed. This rule will be effective on 

October 13, 2009 without further notice 

unless EPA receives adverse comment 

by September 14, 2009. 

If EPA receives adverse comment, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in 

the Federal Register informing the 

public that the rule will not take effect. 

EPA will address all public comments 

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. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

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 

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 Clean Air Act; 

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. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

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 October 13, 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 

proposed rulemaking. 

This action to approve the YorkAdams Counties revised maintenance 

plan 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: July 28, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

■ 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 XX—Pennsylvania 

■ 2. In § 52.2020, the table in paragraph 

(e)(1) is amended by revising the entry 

for the 8-Hour Ozone Maintenance Plan 

for the York-Adams, PA Area to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2020 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES
40750 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 155 / Thursday, August 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA-APPROVED NON-REGULATORY OR QUASI-REGULATORY MATERIAL

Name of non-regulatory SIP 

revision Applicable geographic area State submittal date EPA approval date Additional explanation 

* * * * * * * 

8-Hour Ozone Maintenance 

Plan for the York-Adams, 

PA Area.

York-Adams Counties Area ... 6/14/07 1/14/08, 73 FR 2163.

5/23/08 8/13/09 [Insert page number 

where the document begins].

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–18864 Filed 8–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0566; FRL–8939–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Great Basin 

Unified Air Pollution Control District, 

Kern County Air Pollution Control 

District, Mohave Desert Air Quality 

Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the 

following actions: A disapproval of 

revisions to the Great Basin Unified Air 

Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) 

portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP); a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Kern County Air 

Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) 

SIP; and, a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of revisions to the Mohave 

Desert Air Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD) SIP. These revisions 

concern particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from fugitive dust sources. 

This action was proposed in the Federal 

Register on November 18, 2008. Under 

authority of the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this 

action directs California to correct rule 

deficiencies in GBUAPCD Rule 401; 

and, this action simultaneously 

approves KCAPCD Rule 402 and 

MDAQMD Rule 403.1 and directs 

California to correct the deficiencies 

within these rules. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on September 14, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0566 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: Jerry 

Wamsley, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4111, wamsley.jerry@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 November 18, 2008 (73 FR 68369), 

EPA proposed to disapprove GBUAPCD 

Rule 401. In this same action, EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of KCAPCD Rule 402 and 

MDAQMD Rule 403.1. Table 1 lists the 

rules that California submitted for 

incorporation within the SIP. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

GBUAPCD ..................................................... 401 Fugitive Dust ................................................. 12/04/06 05/08/07 

KCAPCD ........................................................ 402 Fugitive Dust ................................................. 11/03/04 01/13/05 

MDAQMD ....................................................... 403 .1 Fugitive Dust Control .................................... 11/25/96 03/03/97 

We proposed to disapprove 

GBUAPCD Rule 401 because some 

provisions do not satisfy the 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the Act. These provisions are 

discussed below. 

1. The rule lacks a 20% opacity limit. 

GBUAPCD should either incorporate or 

reference such a 20% opacity limit. 

2. The rule lacks a clear description 

of required control measures for meeting 

the rule’s opacity and property line PM 

emission limits. GBUAPCD should also 

remove the ‘‘reasonable precautions’’ 

language. 

3. GBUAPCD should either provide a 

precise wind speed exemption from the 

rule’s emission standards, or delete the 

language concerning ‘‘normal wind 

conditions’’. 

4. GBUAPCD should remove 

director’s discretionary language in 

Section D.1. 

5. As specified by the PM–10 plan, 

GBUAPCD should define required 

BACM provisions beyond those already 

adopted to reduce Owens dry lakebed 

dust emissions, and specify an 

enforceable implementation schedule. 

We proposed a limited approval of 

KCAPCD Rule 402 and MDAPCD Rule 

403.1 because we determined that these 

rules improve the SIP and are largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

some rule provisions conflict with 

section 110 and part D of the Act. 


pwalker on DSK8KYBLC1PROD with RULES