Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37255 

Collaborative Action, U.S. Department 

of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW., 

Washington, DC 20240. Include the 

number 1076–AF23 in the 

submission. 

We cannot ensure that comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) will be included in 

the docket for this rulemaking and 

considered. Comments sent to an 

address other than those listed above 

will not be included in the docket for 

this rulemaking. 

Comments on the information 

collections contained in this proposed 

regulation are separate from those on 

the substance of the rule. Send 

comments on the information collection 

burden to OMB by facsimile to (202) 

395–5806 or email to the OMB Desk 

Officer for the Department of the 

Interior at OIRA_Submission@

omb.eop.gov. Please send a copy of your 

comments to the person listed in the 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT

section of this notice. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Appel, Director, Office of 

Regulatory Affairs & Collaborative 

Action, (202) 273–4680; 

elizabeth.appel@bia.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BIA 

published a proposed rule on land 

acquisitions in Alaska on May 1, 2014 

(79 FR 24648). This proposed rule 

would delete a provision in the 

Department of the Interior’s land-intotrust regulations that excludes from the 

scope of the regulations, with one 

exception, land acquisitions in trust in 

the State of Alaska. Since publication of 

the proposed rule, BIA has received 

several requests to extend the comment 

period. Accordingly, to provide 

additional time for review and comment 

on the proposed rule, BIA is extending 

its original 60-day comment period by 

an additional 30 days. 

Dated: June 24, 2014. 

Kevin K. Washburn, 

Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15312 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–6W–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0746; FRL–9912–95– 

Region 4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Florida: 

Removal of Sulfur Storage and 

Handling Rules 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the Florida State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted 

by the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection (FDEP), on 

April 5, 2012. The revision modifies 

Florida’s SIP to remove two state rules 

relating to new and existing sulfur 

storage and handling facilities because 

they are no longer necessary. EPA has 

preliminarily determined that Florida’s 

April 5, 2012, SIP revision regarding 

sulfur storage and handling facilities is 

approvable because it is consistent with 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act). 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2013–0746, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0746’’—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: Lynorae 

Benjamin, 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2013– 

0746. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

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 

www.regulations.gov or email, 

information that you consider to be CBI 

or otherwise protected. The 

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 email comment directly 

to EPA without going through 

www.regulations.gov, your email 

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 

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 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: Joel 

Huey, Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1EPA’s December 24, 1985, action incorporated 

the state sulfur storage and handling rules at 17– 

2.540, F.A.C. and 17–2.600, F.A.C. into Florida’s 

SIP. Florida later reorganized its administrative 

code and renumbered these rules as 62–212.600, 

F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C., respectively. EPA 

updated the Florida SIP on June 16, 1999 (64 FR 

32346), to make it consistent with the revised 

numbering system. 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9104. 

Mr. Huey can also be reached via 

electronic mail at huey.joel@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The proposed revision requests that 

EPA remove two state rules—Rule 62– 

212.600, F.A.C., ‘‘Sulfur Storage and 

Handling Facilities’’ and Rule 62– 

296.411, F.A.C., ‘‘Sulfur Storage and 

Handling Facilities’’—from Florida’s 

SIP. Florida repealed these rules on 

February 16, 2012. 

The requirements of Rule 62–212.600, 

F.A.C., apply to proposed new or 

modified sulfur storage and handling 

facilities. The rule states that the owner 

or operator of any proposed new or 

modified sulfur storage and handling 

facility that is to be located within five 

kilometers of either a particulate matter 

(PM) air quality maintenance area or a 

prevention of significant deterioration 

(PSD) Class I area shall provide FDEP 

with an analysis of the probable 

particulate matter ambient air quality 

impacts that could result from the 

operation of the facility. Additionally, 

the owner or operator shall provide 

FDEP with an analysis of the probable 

annual and maximum monthly sulfur 

deposition rates that could occur as a 

result of the operation of the facility. 

The owner or operator shall conduct 

post-construction air quality and 

deposition monitoring of sulfur 

particulate emissions from the facility 

for two years from the date of issuance 

of the initial air operation permit for the 

facility, and, through the permitting 

process, shall determine the period of 

time, if any, such monitoring must be 

continued. The data collected would 

then be provided to FDEP as specified 

in the permit. Florida states that the 

‘‘General Preconstruction Review 

Requirements’’ and ‘‘Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD)’’ 

provisions of the Rules 62–212.300 and 

62–212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be 

used instead of Rule 62–212.600, F.A.C 

to prevent PM emissions that would 

interfere with attainment and 

maintenance of national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS), prevention 

of significant deterioration of air quality, 

or protection of visibility. 

Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C., states that 

no person shall cause, suffer, or allow 

elemental sulfur to be stored, handled, 

or transported within the State in 

crushed bulk or slate form or in any 

form other than standard sulfur pellets 

or in molten form, except that sulfur 

may be transferred within the 

boundaries of a single facility in other 

forms. Facilities using standard sulfur 

pellets or molten sulfur, or sulfur 

vatting facilities, may be permitted only 

in conformance with the practices 

identified in the rule. Florida states that 

the ‘‘General Pollutant Emission 

Limiting Standards’’ of Rule 62– 

296.320, F.A.C., can be applied instead 

of Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C. to 

adequately control PM emissions from 

dry material handling operations such 

as those associated with sulfur storage 

and handling facilities. 

With removal of the above two rules 

from the SIP, Florida’s PM requirements 

under the SIP for new and existing 

sulfur storage and handling facilities 

would align with the PM requirements 

for other, similar dry material handling 

sources in the State. At the time that 

Florida promulgated its sulfur storage 

and handling rules, the State was 

concerned that total suspended 

particulate matter levels in Florida 

would be negatively impacted by 

increased sulfur handling and storage 

operations to such an extent as to 

warrant additional facility-specific work 

practices and monitoring. However, the 

anticipated increase in sulfur handling 

and storage operations did not occur, 

and only 11 facilities are subject to Rule 

62–212.300, F.A.C. and Rule 62– 

212.400, F.A.C. EPA approved these two 

state rules into the SIP on December 24, 

1985, at 50 FR 52460.1

II. Analysis of the State’s Submittal 

EPA’s primary consideration for 

determining the approvability of 

Florida’s request to remove the existing 

sulfur storage and handling facilities 

rules, 62–212.600, F.A.C. and 62– 

296.411, F.A.C., from the SIP is whether 

these requested actions comply with 

section 110(l) of the CAA. Under 

Section 110(l), EPA cannot approve a 

SIP revision if that revision would 

interfere with any applicable 

requirement regarding attainment, 

reasonable further progress (RFP), or 

any other applicable requirement 

established in the CAA. EPA will 

approve a SIP revision that removes or 

modifies control measures in the SIP 

only after the state makes a 

‘‘noninterference’’ demonstration that 

such a removal or modification will not 

interfere with RFP, attainment or 

maintenance of any NAAQS, or any 

other CAA requirement. As such, 

Florida must make a demonstration of 

noninterference in order to remove the 

sulfur storage and handling facilities 

requirements from its SIP. 

Because actual emissions are not 

expected to change, there will be no 

impact on PSD increments, RFP, 

visibility, attainment or maintenance of 

any NAAQS, or any other applicable 

CAA requirement. Particulate matter, in 

the form of coarse (PM10) and fine 

(PM2.5) PM, is the pollutant related to 

the SIP revision. On January 15, 2013 

(78 FR 3086), EPA established an annual 

primary PM2.5 NAAQS at 12.0 

micrograms per cubic meter (mg/m3) 

based on a 3-year average of annual 

mean PM2.5 concentrations. At that time, 

EPA retained the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS at 35 mg/m3 based on a 3-year 

average of the 98th percentile of 24-hour 

concentrations. 

All areas in the State are currently 

designated as attainment for the PM10

and PM2.5 NAAQS. For example, Table 

1 identifies the PM2.5 annual and 24- 

hour design values for the counties 

where facilities subject to the repealed 

sulfur storage and handling rules are 

located and demonstrates that these 

design values are well below the 

respective NAAQS. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES

County 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

Annual Design Value 

Hillsborough ..................................................................................................... 8.0 7.8 7.6 7.1 

Polk .................................................................................................................. 7.7 7.5 7.4 7.0 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 37257 

2These data can be accessed at 

www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA– 

R04–OAR–2013–0746. 

TABLE 1—PM2.5 DESIGN VALUES—Continued 

County 2008–2010 2009–2011 2010–2012 2011–2013 

24-hour Design Value 

Hillsborough ..................................................................................................... 16 17 16 16 

Polk .................................................................................................................. 15 15 16 15 

There are no emissions reductions of 

carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen 

oxides, ozone, or sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

attributable to the sulfur storage and 

handling facilities requirements. As a 

result, the removal of these 

requirements will not interfere with 

attainment of these NAAQS. 

A comparison of PM emissions from 

sulfur handling and storage emission 

units at each subject facility with PM 

emissions from the entire facility 

demonstrates that sulfur PM emissions 

from the subject units account for 

approximately zero to nine percent of 

total PM emissions at most facilities. Of 

the four facilities at which all facility 

PM emissions are entirely due to sulfur 

PM emissions from sulfur handling and 

storage emissions units, the amount of 

sulfur PM emitted ranges from 

approximately one to six tons per year 

per facility. See Table 2. 

TABLE 2—COMPARISON OF PM EMISSIONS FROM SULFUR HANDLING AND STORAGE EMISSION UNITS (EU) AT EACH

FACILITY VERSUS PM EMISSIONS FROM THE ENTIRE FACILITY 2

Facility Facility ID Sulfur EU PM 

(tons/year) 

All facility EU 

PM 

(tons/year) 

Sulfur EU PM 

% of all facility 

EU PM 

Potential (P) 

or 2010 

actual 

(A) PM 

emissions 

WHITE SPRS AG CHEM—SR/SC CMPLX ........................... 470002 5.6 2084.8 0.3 P 

CF INDUSTRIES—PLANT CITY PHOSP COMPLEX ........... 570005 0.6 59.4 1.0 A 

MOSAIC FERTILIZER—RIVERVIEW FACILITY ................... 570008 0.6 27.9 2.2 A 

GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, HOOKER’S PT SITE ............ 570082 1.0 1.0 100.0 P 

GULF SULPHUR SERVICES, PORT SUTTON SITE ........... 570100 6.0 6.0 100.0 P 

PASCO TERMINALS, INC ..................................................... 570455 4.5 4.5 100.0 P 

MARTIN GAS SALES, INC .................................................... 570477 1.5 1.5 100.0 P 

MOSAIC FERTILIZER, LLC—BARTOW FACILITY .............. 1050046 4.4 57.0 7.7 A 

MOSAIC FERTILIZER—SOUTH PIERCE FACILITY ............ 1050055 0.4 99.6 0.4 P 

MOSAIC FERTILIZER—NEW WALES FACILITY ................. 1050059 12.0 141.3 8.5 A 

QUANTUM ST REGIS TREATING & JAY GAS .................... 1130005 0.0 14.7 0.0 A 

Total ................................................................................ ........................ 36.6 2497.7 1.5 

Of the 11 facilities that are subject to 

the sulfur handling and storage 

emission rules, four will experience a 

relaxation in the opacity limit from 10 

or 15 percent to 20 percent if 62– 

212.600, F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C. 

are removed from the SIP, but emissions 

are not expected to increase because the 

underlying work practices will remain 

unchanged. The sulfur particulate 

emitting emissions units at these four 

facilities are approximately less than 

one ton per year, and a majority of the 

visible emissions tests conducted in 

2010–11 for sulfur storage and handling 

units showed no visible emissions (i.e., 

zero percent opacity). 

Furthermore, several existing state 

rules incorporated into Florida’s SIP can 

be applied in lieu of Rules 62–212.600, 

F.A.C. and 62–296.411, F.A.C. to 

address sulfur PM emissions from sulfur 

storage and handling emissions units at 

these facilities. Rules 62–212.300 and 

62–212.400, F.A.C., respectively, can be 

applied instead of the sulfur-specific 

requirements of paragraph 62– 

212.600(2)(a), F.A.C., to evaluate 

potential particulate matter ambient air 

quality impacts. The sulfur deposition 

analysis required by paragraph 62– 

212.600(2)(b), F.A.C., is unnecessary 

because there is no standard to compare 

the results with to demonstrate 

compliance. Rule 62–296.411, F.A.C., 

the ‘‘General Pollutant Emission 

Limiting Standards’’ of Rule 62– 

296.320, F.A.C., and, for some emissions 

units, the PM Reasonably Available 

Control Technology requirements of 

Rule 62–296.711, F.A.C., can be applied 

to control the sulfur PM emissions from 

sulfur storage and handling emissions 

units at these facilities. Rule 62– 

296.711, F.A.C. generally imposes a five 

percent opacity limit for existing sulfur 

handling, sizing, screening, crushing, 

and grinding operations in former total 

suspended particulate non-attainment 

areas or within 50 kilometers of such 

former areas except where an emissions 

unit has received a Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BACT) 

determination or the emissions are 

insignificant enough to be exempted 

under Rule 62–296.700(2), F.A.C. The 

control techniques and work practice 

standards found in Rule 62–296.411, 

F.A.C., to control unconfined emissions 

of particulate matter can also be 

required by paragraph 62–296.320(4)(c), 

F.A.C., which prohibits the emission of 

unconfined particulate matter without 

taking reasonable precautions to prevent 

such emissions. 

For the reasons discussed above, EPA 

has determined that removal of the 

sulfur storage and handling facilities 

rules will not interfere with attainment 

or maintenance of the NAAQS in 

surrounding states or interfere with any 

other requirement identified in section 

110(l). 

III. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve Florida’s 

April 5, 2012, SIP revision to remove 

state Rule 62–212.600, F.A.C. and Rule 

62–296.411, F.A.C., related to sulfur 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
37258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 126 / Tuesday, July 1, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

storage and handling facilities, from the 

Florida SIP because the Agency has 

preliminarily determined that this 

revision is consistent with section 110(l) 

of the CAA. 

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 proposed 

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 proposed 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, and Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: June 16, 2014. 

Heather McTeer Toney, 

Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2014–15399 Filed 6–30–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0336 FRL–9912–65– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern basic enforcement 

authorities under the Clean Air Act 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by July 31, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0336, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California 94105–3901. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), 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: 

Vanessa Graham, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4120, graham.vanessa@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: Rule 1040 Enforcement, Rule 

1050 Order of Abatement, Rule 1070 

Inspections, and Rule 1090 Penalty. In 

the Rules and Regulations section of this 

Federal Register, we are approving 

these local rules in a direct final action 

without prior proposal because we 

believe these SIP revisions are not 

controversial. If we receive adverse 

comments, however, we will publish a 

timely withdrawal of the direct final 

rule and address the comments in 

subsequent action based on this 

proposed rule. Please note that if we 

receive adverse comment on an 

amendment, paragraph, or section of 

this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

we may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

We do not plan to open a second 

comment period, so anyone interested 

in commenting should do so at this 

time. If we do not receive adverse 

comments, no further activity is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS