Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 58553 

(ii) Proceed as directed by any 

commissioned, warrant or petty officer 

on board a vessel displaying a Coast 

Guard Ensign. 

(c) Definitions. Captain of the Port 

Baltimore means the Commander, Coast 

Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast 

Guard commissioned, warrant or petty 

officer who has been authorized by the 

Captain of the Port to act on his behalf. 

Designated representative means any 

Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or 

petty officer who has been authorized 

by the Captain of the Port Baltimore to 

assist in enforcing the safety zone 

described in paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast 

Guard may be assisted by Federal, State 

and local agencies in the patrol and 

enforcement of the zone. 

(e) Enforcement periods. This section 

will be enforced: 

(1) From 6 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on 

November 19, 2009, and if necessary 

due to inclement weather, from 6 p.m. 

through 8:30 p.m. on November 20, 

2009; and 

(2) From 5:30 p.m. through 8 p.m. on 

November 27, 2009, and if necessary 

due to inclement weather, from 5:30 

p.m. through 8 p.m. on November 28, 

2009. 

Dated: October 23, 2009. 

Mark P. O’Malley, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port Baltimore, Maryland. 

[FR Doc. E9–27220 Filed 11–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0558; FRL–8975–6] 

Revisions to the Arizona State PM–10 

Implementation Plan; Maricopa County 

Air Quality Department 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the Maricopa Air Quality 

Department (MCAQD) portion of the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions were proposed in 

the Federal Register on August 26, 2009 

and concern particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from non-metallic mineral 

mining and processing in the Maricopa 

County (Phoenix) serious PM–10 

nonattainment area. We are approving 

local rules that regulate these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on January 8, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0558 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: 

Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972–3368, 

chilingaryan.sona@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 August 26, 2009 (74 FR 43085), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the Arizona SIP. 

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

MCAQD ........................................ 316 Nonmetallic Mineral Processing ....................................... 3/12/08 7/10/08 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the CAA requirements for Best 

Available Control Measures (Section 

189(b)(1)(B)) and Most Stringent 

Measures (Section 188(e)). Our 

proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following parties. 

1. Lawrence Odle, Director, MCAQD; 

letter dated September 23, 2009 and 

received September 25, 2009. 

2. Joy E. Herr-Cardillo, Staff Attorney, 

Arizona Center for Law in the Public 

Interest (ACLPI); letter dated and 

received on September 25, 2009. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. 

Comment #1: MCAQD supports our 

proposed approval of 316. 

Response #1: No response necessary. 

Comment #2: MCAQD provides 

information related to MCAQD’s current 

efforts and future plans to improve and 

clarify Rule 316. MCAQD has initiated 

a rulemaking process to revise the rule 

to include alternative control measures 

approved by MCAQD and EPA, has 

formed a working group to evaluate the 

Department’s experience with the 

moisture testing and sampling protocols 

related to the rule, and plans to separate 

the requirements in Rule 316 for 

different kinds of facilities into five 

separate rules. In the current 

rulemaking, the Department intends to 

separate product transfer and 

distribution facilities out of Rule 316, 

and in the future also plans to separate 

asphaltic concrete batch plants, concrete 

batch plants, inert landfills, and gypsum 

and all types of mulch. 

Response #2: This comment addresses 

MCAQD’s future plans and was 

provided for information purposes only. 

It does not affect EPA’s proposed action 

on the March 12, 2008 version of Rule 

316, and no further response is 

necessary. 

Comment #3: MCAQD comments that 

Table 1 in 74 FR 43085 incorrectly 

refers to 3/10/08 as the adoption date for 

the rule, and notes that the correct date 

is 3/12/08. 

Response #3: We agree. There was a 

typographical error in the adoption date. 

We do not believe this error is likely to 

result in significant confusion since 

only one version of the rule was 

adopted in 2008, and the previous 

version was adopted in 2005. 

Comment #4: ACLPI comments that in 

August 2009 it notified us of its intent 

to take legal action against EPA for 

failure to act on Rule 316. ACLPI 

supports the proposed approval and the 

increased stringency of Rule 316. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

58554 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Comment #4: No response necessary. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

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

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule 

into the Arizona SIP as meeting the 

requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B) 

and 188(e). 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

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. 

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 January 12, 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. 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: October 5, 2009. 

Jane Diamond, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations 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 D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(141)(i)(B)(2) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(141) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(2) Rule 316, ‘‘Nonmetallic Mineral 

Processing,’’ adopted on 

March 12, 2008. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. E9–27046 Filed 11–12–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 300 

[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–8979–2] 

National Oil and Hazardous Substance 

Pollution Contingency Plan; National 

Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the 

California Gulch Superfund Site 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Region 8 is publishing a 

direct final rule, a Notice of Partial 

Deletion of the California Gulch 

Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake 

County, Colorado, including all of 

Operable Unit 8 (OU8), from the 

National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL, 

promulgated pursuant to section 105 of 

the Comprehensive Environmental 

Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is 

an appendix of the National Oil and 

Hazardous Substances Pollution 

Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct 

final partial deletion is being published 

by EPA with the concurrence of the 

State of Colorado, through the Colorado 

Department of Public Health and 

Environment (CDPHE) because EPA has 

determined that all appropriate 

response actions at these identified 

parcels under CERCLA, other than 

operation, maintenance, and five-year 

reviews, have been completed. 

However, this partial deletion does not 

preclude future actions under 

Superfund. 

This partial deletion pertains to all of 

OU8 including the impounded tailing, 

non-residential area soils, waste rock, 

fluvial tailing and stream sediment. The 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES