19886 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

proceed directly to shore to terminate at 

latitude 30°22′54.46′′ N, longitude 

081°23′48.44′′ W. 

(4) Sherman Creek restricted area. 

This restricted area shall encompass all 

navigable waters of the United States, as 

defined at 33 CFR part 329, to include 

Sherman Creek, its tributaries and 

associated tidal marshes located within 

the NAVSTA Mayport area boundaries 

described in this section. The restricted 

area is completely encircled by 

roadways and is bordered on the south 

by Wonderwood Expressway, on the 

west by SR A1A, on the north by 

Perimeter Road, and on the east by 

Mayport Road. 

(5) Danger zone. The danger zone 

shall encompass all navigable waters of 

the United States, as defined at 33 CFR 

part 329, within the area bounded by a 

line connecting the following 

coordinates: Commencing from the 

shoreline at latitude 30°24′00.31′′ N, 

longitude 081°25′06.02′′ W; thence to 

latitude 30°24′11.16′′ N, longitude 

081°25′03.90′′ W; thence to latitude 

30°24′00.62′′ N, longitude 081°24′10.13′′ 

W; thence to a point on the shoreline 

riprap at latitude 30°23′41.26′′ N, 

longitude 081°24′08.82′′ W. 

(b) The regulations—(1) St. Johns 

River restricted area. All persons, 

vessels, or other craft are prohibited 

from entering, transiting, drifting, 

dredging, or anchoring within the area 

described in paragraph (a)(2) of this 

section without the permission of the 

Commanding Officer, NAVSTA Mayport 

or his/her authorized representative. 

This restriction will be in place 24 

hours a day, seven days a week. 

Warning signs notifying individuals of 

the restricted area boundary and 

prohibiting entry into the area will be 

posted at 500-foot intervals along the 

property boundary. 

(2) Atlantic Ocean restricted area. All 

persons, vessels, or other craft are 

prohibited from entering, transiting, 

drifting, dredging, or anchoring within 

the area described in paragraph (a)(3) of 

this section without the permission of 

the Commanding Officer, NAVSTA 

Mayport or his/her authorized 

representative. This restriction will be 

in place 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week. Warning signs notifying 

individuals of the restricted area 

boundary and prohibiting entry into the 

area will be posted at 500-foot intervals 

along the property boundary. 

(3) Sherman Creek restricted area. All 

persons, vessels, or other craft are 

prohibited from entering, transiting, 

drifting, dredging, or anchoring within 

the area described in paragraph (a)(4) of 

this section without the permission of 

the Commanding Officer, NAVSTA 

Mayport or his/her authorized 

representative. This restriction will be 

in place 24 hours a day, seven days a 

week. Warning signs notifying 

individuals of the restricted area 

boundary and prohibiting entry into the 

area will be posted at 500-foot intervals 

along the property boundary where 

practicable (e.g., not in the wetlands). In 

addition, a floating Small Craft Intrusion 

Barrier will be placed across Sherman 

Creek just east of the A1A bridge and 

another will be placed across tributaries 

to Sherman Creek just north of the 

Wonderwood Expressway. 

(4) Danger zone. During periods of 

munitions movement at wharves Bravo 

and Charlie, no person or vessel shall be 

allowed to remain within the 1,250-foot 

Explosive Safety Quantity-Distance arcs 

generated by the activity. NAVSTA 

Mayport will not announce or publish 

notification prior to enforcing this 

regulation due to the unacceptable 

security threat posed by advance public 

notice of military munitions 

movements. 

(c) Enforcement. The regulations in 

this section shall be enforced by the 

Commanding Officer, NAVSTA Mayport 

and/or such persons or agencies as he/ 

she may designate. Military vessels will 

patrol the areas identified in this section 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Any 

person or vessel encroaching within the 

areas identified in this section will be 

asked to immediately leave the area. 

Failure to do so will result in the 

forceful removal of the person or vessel 

from the area in question. 

Dated: April 7, 2010. 

Approved. 

Michael G. Ensch, 

Chief, Operations, Directorate of Civil Works. 

[FR Doc. 2010–8786 Filed 4–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0052; FRL–9136–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wyoming; Revisions to the Wyoming 

Air Quality Standards and Regulations 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving two State 

Implementation Plan revisions 

submitted by the State of Wyoming on 

September 11, 2008. Wyoming has 

revised its Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations, specifically Chapter 1, 

Section 5, Unavoidable equipment 

malfunction, and Chapter 1, Section 6, 

Credible evidence. Because these 

revisions conform to the Clean Air Act 

and EPA regulations, EPA is approving 

the revisions with the intention of 

making them Federally enforceable. 

EPA is taking this action under section 

110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on June 15, 

2010 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comment by May 17, 

2010. If adverse comment is received, 

EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 

the direct final rule in the Federal 

Register informing the public that the 

rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0052, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 

8P–AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2009– 

0052. 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. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 19887 

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 instructions on 

submitting comments, go to Section I. 

General Information of the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Program, Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 

1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. EPA requests that if at all 

possible, you contact the individual 

listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section to view the hard copy 

of the docket. You may view the hard 

copy of the docket Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background of Wyoming’s Submissions 

III. EPA’s Review of Wyoming’s Submissions 

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of the 

CAA 

V. Final Action 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The words State or Wyoming 

mean the State of Wyoming, unless the 

context indicates otherwise. 

I. General Information 

A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare 

My Comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through http:// 

regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark 

the part or all of the information that 

you claim to be CBI. For CBI 

information in a disk or CD ROM that 

you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the 

disk or CD ROM as CBI and then 

identify electronically within the disk or 

CD ROM the specific information that is 

claimed as CBI. In addition to one 

complete version of the comment that 

includes information claimed as CBI, a 

copy of the comment that does not 

contain the information claimed as CBI 

must be submitted for inclusion in the 

public docket. Information so marked 

will not be disclosed except in 

accordance with procedures set forth in 

40 CFR part 2. 

2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. 

When submitting comments, remember 

to: 

a. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

b. Follow directions—The agency may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

c. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

d. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

e. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

f. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

g. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

h. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. Background of Wyoming’s 

Submissions 

On September 11, 2008 the State of 

Wyoming submitted to EPA two formal 

revisions to Wyoming’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions amend Wyoming’s Air Quality 

Standards and Regulations. In 

particular, Wyoming has revised 

Chapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 

5, Unavoidable equipment malfunction, 

and has added a new section—Section 

6, Credible evidence—to Chapter 1. 

A. Chapter 1, Common Provisions, 

Section 5, Unavoidable Equipment 

Malfunction 

Wyoming has revised its unavoidable 

equipment malfunction rule in response 

to a series of EPA actions. On November 

16, 2000, the Administrator of the EPA 

issued an order granting in part a 

petition to object to Wyoming’s issuance 

of a Title V permit. In the Matter of: 

Pacificorp’s Jim Bridger and Naughton 

Electric Utility Steam Generating Plants, 

Petition No. VIII–00–1 (Nov. 16, 2000). 

In the order, the Administrator directed 

EPA’s regional office in Denver (EPA 

Region 8) to review Wyoming’s 

Abnormal Conditions and Equipment 

Malfunction rule. On November 1, 2002, 

in another Title V petition order, the 

Administrator repeated this direction. In 

the Matter of: Title V Permit for 

Buckingham Lumber Company, 

Buckingham Lumber Mill, Petition No. 

VIII–2002–01 (Nov. 1, 2002). After 

completing its review, EPA Region 8 

identified for Wyoming deficiencies in 

the rule. Letter from Richard R. Long, 

Director, Air and Radiation Program, 

EPA Region 8, to Dan Olson, 

Administrator, Wyoming’s Department 

of Environmental Quality (Jan. 30, 

2003). EPA Region 8 noted that the rule 

did not conform to Clean Air Act 

requirements to protect National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) and Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration (PSD) increments. 

Specifically, the rule allowed an 

exemption from enforcement for excess 

emissions that occurred during 

malfunctions and certain other 

conditions. EPA’s interpretation was 

and continues to be that the Clean Air 

Act requires that all periods of excess 

emissions be treated as violations that 

cannot be exempted from enforcement. 

EPA therefore requested that the rule be 

revised. 

On November 16, 2005, the 

Environmental Quality Council of the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality approved a revision to the 

Abnormal Conditions and Equipment 

Malfunction rule. The revision removed 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

19888 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

1The relevant interpretations were not affected by 

a subsequent memorandum titled ‘‘Reissuance of 

Clarification—State Implementation Plans (SIPs): 

Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During 

Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown,’’ dated 

December 5, 2001, from Eric Schaeffer, Director, 

Office of Regulatory Enforcement, Office of 

Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and John 

S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Office of Air and Radiation. 

the existing automatic exemption and 

replaced it with enforcement discretion 

provisions for excess emissions caused 

by malfunctions. The revision became 

State-effective January 30, 2006. On 

September 11, 2008, the Governor of the 

State of Wyoming submitted the 

revision to Region 8. 

B. Chapter 1, Common Provisions, 

Section 6, Credible Evidence 

Wyoming has added the credible 

evidence section to its rules in response 

to an EPA SIP call. On February 24, 

1997, EPA revised its rule governing the 

use of credible evidence in enforcement 

actions. 62 FR 8314. In parallel, EPA 

directed its Regional Offices to conduct 

a SIP call to States in order to ensure 

consistency with the revised credible 

evidence rule. On October 20, 1999, 

EPA Region 8 issued a SIP call to 

Wyoming. In a letter from EPA Regional 

Administrator William P. Yellowtail 

notifying Wyoming of the SIP call, EPA 

stated that the Wyoming SIP did not 

comply with sections 110(a)(2)(A) and 

(C) of the CAA because the SIP could be 

interpreted to limit the types of credible 

evidence or information that could be 

used for determining compliance and 

establishing violations. 

On October 23, 2000, the 

Environmental Quality Council of the 

Wyoming Department of Environmental 

Quality approved revisions to the 

Wyoming Air Quality Standards and 

Regulations, including the addition of a 

provision (Chapter 1, Common 

Provisions, Section 6, Credible 

evidence) allowing for the use of 

credible evidence in enforcement 

actions. The added provision became 

State-effective December 8, 2000. On 

September 11, 2008, the Governor of the 

State of Wyoming submitted the 

revision to Region 8. 

III. EPA’s Review of Wyoming’s 

Submissions 

To determine if Wyoming’s 

submissions should be approved by 

EPA, EPA must evaluate the 

submissions for consistency with the 

CAA and EPA regulations. 

A. Revision to Chapter 1, Common 

Provisions, Section 5, Unavoidable 

Equipment Malfunction 

EPA’s interpretations of the Act 

regarding excess emissions caused by 

equipment malfunctions are contained 

in several documents. Most relevant to 

this action are the following documents: 

A memorandum dated September 28, 

1982, from Kathleen M. Bennett, 

Assistant Administrator for Air, Noise, 

and Radiation, entitled ‘‘Policy on 

Excess Emissions During Startup, 

Shutdown, Maintenance, and 

Malfunctions’’; a clarification to that 

memorandum from Kathleen M. Bennett 

issued on February 15, 1983; and a 

memorandum entitled ‘‘State 

Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding 

Excess Emissions During Malfunctions, 

Startup, and Shutdown,’’ from Steven A. 

Herman, Assistant Administrator for 

Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance, and Robert Perciasepe, 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, dated September 20, 1999.1

As explained in these memoranda, 

excess emissions are those air emission 

levels that exceed any applicable 

emission limitation. Because excess 

emissions might aggravate air quality so 

as to prevent attainment and 

maintenance of the NAAQS or 

jeopardize the PSD increments, EPA 

views all periods of excess emissions as 

violations of the applicable emission 

limitation. Therefore, EPA will 

disapprove all SIP revisions that 

automatically exempt from enforcement 

excess emissions claimed to result from 

an equipment malfunction. In addition, 

EPA will disapprove SIP revisions that 

give discretion to a state director to 

determine whether an instance of excess 

emissions is a violation of an emission 

limitation, because such a 

determination could bar EPA and 

citizens from enforcing applicable 

requirements. 

Instead, under EPA’s interpretations, 

if a state chooses to address violations 

for excess emissions that occur as a 

result of claimed malfunctions, the state 

may take two approaches. The first, the 

‘‘enforcement discretion’’ approach, 

allows a state director to refrain from 

taking enforcement action for a violation 

if certain criteria are met. The second, 

the ‘‘affirmative defense’’ approach, 

allows a source to avoid penalties if it 

can prove that certain conditions are 

met. 

Wyoming has selected the 

enforcement discretion approach. Under 

this approach, the state director, in 

evaluating whether to exercise 

discretion to decline enforcement for a 

violation caused by an unavoidable 

malfunction, should consider whether 

the following criteria have been 

satisfied: 

1. To the maximum extent practicable 

the air pollution control equipment, 

process equipment, or processes were 

maintained and operated in a manner 

consistent with good practice for 

minimizing emissions; 

2. Repairs were made in an 

expeditious fashion when the operator 

knew or should have known that 

applicable emission limitations were 

being exceeded. Off-shift labor and 

overtime must have been utilized, to the 

extent practicable, to ensure that such 

repairs were made as expeditiously as 

practicable; 

3. The amount and duration of the 

excess emissions (including any bypass) 

were minimized to the maximum extent 

practicable during periods of such 

emissions; 

4. All possible steps were taken to 

minimize the impact of the excess 

emissions on ambient air quality; and 

5. The excess emissions are not part 

of a recurring pattern indicative of 

inadequate design, operation, or 

maintenance. 

We have evaluated Wyoming’s 

enforcement discretion provisions for 

excess emissions caused by unavoidable 

equipment malfunctions. The 

provisions are consistent with EPA’s 

interpretations of the CAA as described 

in the memoranda above. Specifically, 

Chapter 1, Common Provisions, section 

5(b) gives the Wyoming Air Quality 

Division discretion when deciding 

whether to ‘‘pursue enforcement after 

considering whether excess emissions 

resulted from an unavoidable 

equipment malfunction.’’ The Division 

is to make this decision by evaluating, 

on a case-by-case basis, information to 

be submitted by the source after an 

incident. The information submitted by 

the source and considered by the 

Division is defined in section 5(a)(i)(A) 

and generally parallels the criteria 

outlined in the Kathleen Bennett 

memoranda discussed above. The 

source has the burden to provide 

sufficient information to demonstrate 

that the Division should use its 

discretion. 

EPA’s memoranda also discuss a 

point not explicitly addressed in 

Wyoming’s new rule. There is no 

language in the new rule explicitly 

stating that, even when the Division 

exercises its discretion and declines 

enforcement, that exercise of discretion 

does not bar EPA or any citizen from 

taking an enforcement action for the 

violation. However, there is also no 

language in the new rule explicitly 

creating such a bar. EPA therefore 

interprets the rule, consistent with 

EPA’s interpretations of the CAA, as not 

barring EPA and citizen enforcement for 

violation of applicable requirements 

when the Division declines 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 19889 

enforcement. Under this interpretation, 

the new rule is consistent with the CAA. 

EPA is therefore approving the revisions 

to Chapter 1, Common Provisions, 

Section 5. 

B. Addition to Chapter 1, Common 

Provisions, Section 6, Credible Evidence 

On February 24, 1997, EPA 

promulgated regulations under sections 

113(a) and 113(e)(1) of the CAA 

clarifying the use of non-reference test 

data—‘‘credible evidence’’—in 

enforcement actions and compliance 

certifications. 62 FR 8314. In particular, 

the regulations prohibit state 

implementation plans from precluding 

the use of credible evidence. The 

regulations state: ‘‘For the purpose of 

submitting compliance certifications or 

establishing whether or not a person has 

violated or is in violation of any 

standard in this part, the plan must not 

preclude the use, including the 

exclusive use, of any credible evidence 

or information, relevant to whether a 

source would have been in compliance 

with applicable requirements if the 

appropriate performance or compliance 

test or procedure had been performed.’’ 

40 CFR 51.212(c). 

EPA has reviewed Wyoming’s new 

credible evidence rule. The new rule 

mirrors the language in 40 CFR 

51.212(c) quoted above and provides for 

the use of credible evidence in 

enforcement actions and compliance 

certifications. Therefore, it is consistent 

with the CAA and EPA regulations. As 

a result, EPA is approving the addition 

of the new credible evidence rule, 

Chapter 1, Common Provisions, Section 

6, Credible evidence, into Wyoming’s 

SIP. 

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the CAA 

Under section 110(l) of the Clean Air 

Act, EPA cannot approve a SIP revision 

if the revision would interfere with any 

applicable requirements concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress toward attainment of the 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. The Wyoming 

SIP revisions that EPA approves today 

do not interfere with attainment of the 

NAAQS or any other applicable 

requirement of the Act. The first 

revision removes a provision from the 

Wyoming SIP that provided an outright 

exemption from emission limits during 

malfunctions. In place of the exemption, 

the SIP now provides—in accordance 

with the CAA—that the Wyoming Air 

Quality Division may exercise its 

enforcement discretion after considering 

whether excess emissions resulted from 

an unavoidable equipment malfunction. 

In the absence of the previous automatic 

exemption, sources will now have a 

greater incentive to comply with their 

emission limits, which will protect the 

NAAQS and increments to a greater 

degree than under the previous rule. 

The second revision, providing for use 

of credible evidence, also protects the 

NAAQS and increments to a greater 

degree by allowing for enhanced 

enforcement of emissions limits. 

Therefore, section 110(l) requirements 

are satisfied. 

V. Final Action 

EPA is approving SIP revisions that 

Wyoming submitted on September 11, 

2008. The Environmental Quality 

Council of the Wyoming Department of 

Environmental Quality adopted 

revisions to Chapter 1, Common 

Provisions, Section 5, Unavoidable 

equipment malfunction on November 

16, 2005; these revisions became Stateeffective on January 30, 2006. The 

Council added Chapter 1, Common 

Provisions, Section 6, Credible evidence, 

to the Wyoming Air Quality Standards 

and Regulations on October 23, 2000; 

this addition became State-effective on 

December 8, 2000. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments; we are merely approving 

changes to Wyoming’s air rules that 

conform to the CAA and EPA 

regulations. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register publication, 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 June 15, 2010 without 

further notice unless the Agency 

receives adverse comments by May 17, 

2010. If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, 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. The 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. 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. 

VI. 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 approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

19890 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 June 15, 2010. 

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: April 1, 2010. 

Carol L. Campbell, 

Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, 

Region 8. 

■ 40 CFR part 52 is amended to read 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 ZZ—Wyoming 

■ 2. Section 52.2620 is amended by 

revising paragraph (b)(3); and the table 

in paragraph (c)(1) is amended under 

Chapter 1 by revising the entry for 

Section 5 and adding an entry for 

Section 6 to read as follows: 

§ 52.2620 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(3) Copies of the materials 

incorporated by reference may be 

inspected at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129; the Environmental 

Protection Agency, Air and Radiation 

Docket and Information Center, Air 

Docket (6102), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 

NW., Washington, DC 20460; or the 

National Archives and Records 

Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call 202–741–6030, 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject State adopted and 

effective date 

EPA approval date and 

citation 1 Explanation 

Chapter 1 

* * * * * * * 

Section 5 .................................... Unavoidable Equipment Malfunction.11/16/05, 1/30/06 4/16/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

Section 6 .................................... Credible Evidence ...................... 10/23/00, 12/8/00 4/16/10 [Insert FR page number 

where document begins].

* * * * * * * 

1 In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision that is listed in this table, consult the Federal Register cited in this column for that particular provision. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 73 / Friday, April 16, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 19891 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–8405 Filed 4–15–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2010–0003; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8127] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

a notice of this will be provided by 

publication in the Federal Register on a 

subsequent date. 

DATES: Effective Dates: The effective 

date of each community’s scheduled 

suspension is the third date (‘‘Susp.’’) 

listed in the third column of the 

following tables. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you want to determine whether a 

particular community was suspended 

on the suspension date or for further 

information, contact David Stearrett, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–2953. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NFIP 

enables property owners to purchase 

flood insurance which is generally not 

otherwise available. In return, 

communities agree to adopt and 

administer local floodplain management 

aimed at protecting lives and new 

construction from future flooding. 

Section 1315 of the National Flood 

Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. 4022, prohibits flood insurance 

coverage as authorized under the NFIP, 

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; unless an 

appropriate public body adopts 

adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed in 

this document no longer meet that 

statutory requirement for compliance 

with program regulations, 44 CFR part 

59. Accordingly, the communities will 

be suspended on the effective date in 

the third column. As of that date, flood 

insurance will no longer be available in 

the community. However, some of these 

communities may adopt and submit the 

required documentation of legally 

enforceable floodplain management 

measures after this rule is published but 

prior to the actual suspension date. 

These communities will not be 

suspended and will continue their 

eligibility for the sale of insurance. A 

notice withdrawing the suspension of 

the communities will be published in 

the Federal Register. 

In addition, FEMA has identified the 

Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs) in 

these communities by publishing a 

Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). The 

date of the FIRM, if one has been 

published, is indicated in the fourth 

column of the table. No direct Federal 

financial assistance (except assistance 

pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford 

Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act not in connection with a 

flood) may legally be provided for 

construction or acquisition of buildings 

in identified SFHAs for communities 

not participating in the NFIP and 

identified for more than a year, on 

FEMA’s initial flood insurance map of 

the community as having flood-prone 

areas (section 202(a) of the Flood 

Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 

U.S.C. 4106(a), as amended). This 

prohibition against certain types of 

Federal assistance becomes effective for 

the communities listed on the date 

shown in the last column. The 

Administrator finds that notice and 

public comment under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) 

are impracticable and unnecessary 

because communities listed in this final 

rule have been adequately notified. 

Each community receives 6-month, 

90-day, and 30-day notification letters 

addressed to the Chief Executive Officer 

stating that the community will be 

suspended unless the required 

floodplain management measures are 

met prior to the effective suspension 

date. Since these notifications were 

made, this final rule may take effect 

within less than 30 days. 

National Environmental Policy Act. 

This rule is categorically excluded from 

the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, 

Environmental Considerations. No 

environmental impact assessment has 

been prepared. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act. The 

Administrator has determined that this 

rule is exempt from the requirements of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act because 

the National Flood Insurance Act of 

1968, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4022, 

prohibits flood insurance coverage 

unless an appropriate public body 

adopts adequate floodplain management 

measures with effective enforcement 

measures. The communities listed no 

longer comply with the statutory 

requirements, and after the effective 

date, flood insurance will no longer be 

available in the communities unless 

remedial action takes place. 

Regulatory Classification. This final 

rule is not a significant regulatory action 

under the criteria of section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 

1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735. 

Executive Order 13132, Federalism. 

This rule involves no policies that have 

federalism implications under Executive 

Order 13132. 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule meets the applicable 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

Paperwork Reduction Act. This rule 

does not involve any collection of 

information for purposes of the 

Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq. 

List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 64 

Flood insurance, Floodplains. 

■ Accordingly, 44 CFR part 64 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 64—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 64 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; 

Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1978, 3 CFR, 

1978 Comp.; p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 

3 CFR, 1979 Comp.; p. 376. 

§ 64.6 [Amended] 

■ 2. The tables published under the 

authority of § 64.6 are amended as 

follows: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES