Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1899 

(b) An inmate must meet his/her 

financial program responsibility 

obligations (see 28 CFR part 545) and 

GED responsibilities (see 28 CFR part 

544) before being able to receive an 

incentive for his/her RDAP 

participation. 

(c) If an inmate withdraws from or is 

otherwise removed from RDAP, that 

inmate may lose incentives he/she 

previously achieved. 

§ 550.55 Eligibility for early release. 

(a) Eligibility. Inmates may be eligible 

for early release by a period not to 

exceed twelve months if they: 

(1) Were sentenced to a term of 

imprisonment under either: 

(i) 18 U.S.C. Chapter 227, Subchapter 

D for a nonviolent offense; or 

(ii) D.C. Code § 24–403.01 for a 

nonviolent offense, meaning an offense 

other than those included within the 

definition of ‘‘crime of violence’’ in D.C. 

Code § 23–1331(4); and 

(2) Successfully complete a RDAP, as 

described in § 550.53, during their 

current commitment. 

(b) Inmates not eligible for early 

release. As an exercise of the Director’s 

discretion, the following categories of 

inmates are not eligible for early release: 

(1) Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement detainees; 

(2) Pretrial inmates; 

(3) Contractual boarders (for example, 

State or military inmates); 

(4) Inmates who have a prior felony or 

misdemeanor conviction for: 

(i) Homicide (including deaths caused 

by recklessness, but not including 

deaths caused by negligence or 

justifiable homicide); 

(ii) Forcible rape; 

(iii) Robbery; 

(iv) Aggravated assault; 

(v) Arson; 

(vi) Kidnaping; or 

(vii) An offense that by its nature or 

conduct involves sexual abuse offenses 

committed upon minors; 

(5) Inmates who have a current felony 

conviction for: 

(i) An offense that has as an element, 

the actual, attempted, or threatened use 

of physical force against the person or 

property of another; 

(ii) An offense that involved the 

carrying, possession, or use of a firearm 

or other dangerous weapon or 

explosives (including any explosive 

material or explosive device); 

(iii) An offense that, by its nature or 

conduct, presents a serious potential 

risk of physical force against the person 

or property of another; or 

(iv) An offense that, by its nature or 

conduct, involves sexual abuse offenses 

committed upon minors; 

(6) Inmates who have been convicted 

of an attempt, conspiracy, or other 

offense which involved an underlying 

offense listed in paragraph (b)(4) and/or 

(b)(5) of this section; or 

(7) Inmates who previously received 

an early release under 18 U.S.C. 3621(e). 

(c) Early release time-frame. (1) 

Inmates so approved may receive early 

release up to twelve months prior to the 

expiration of the term of incarceration, 

except as provided in paragraphs (c)(2) 

and (3) of this section. 

(2) Under the Director’s discretion 

allowed by 18 U.S.C. 3621(e), we may 

limit the time-frame of early release 

based upon the length of sentence 

imposed by the Court. 

(3) If inmates cannot fulfill their 

community-based treatment obligations 

by the presumptive release date, we may 

adjust provisional release dates by the 

least amount of time necessary to allow 

inmates to fulfill their treatment 

obligations. 

§ 550.56 Community Transitional Drug 

Abuse Treatment Program (TDAT). 

(a) For inmates to successfully 

complete all components of RDAP, they 

must participate in TDAT in the 

community. If inmates refuse or fail to 

complete TDAT, they fail the RDAP and 

are disqualified for any additional 

incentives. 

(b) Inmates with a documented drug 

abuse problem who did not choose to 

volunteer for RDAP may be required to 

participate in TDAT as a condition of 

participation in a community-based 

program, with the approval of the 

Transitional Drug Abuse Program 

Coordinator. 

(c) Inmates who successfully 

complete RDAP and who participate in 

transitional treatment programming at 

an institution must participate in such 

programming for at least one hour per 

month. 

§ 550.57 Inmate appeals. 

Inmates may seek formal review of 

complaints regarding the operation of 

the drug abuse treatment program by 

using administrative remedy procedures 

in 28 CFR part 542. 

[FR Doc. E9–593 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2007–1031; FRL–8754–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Utah’s 

Emission Inventory Reporting 

Requirements 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action approving State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the 

State of Utah on September 7, 1999, and 

December 1, 2003. The revisions add the 

requirements of EPA’s Consolidated 

Emission Reporting Rule (CERR) to the 

State’s SIP. 

Utah has submitted four SIPs that 

relate to today’s action on the CERR 

requirements. The State of Utah 

submitted a SIP revision on September 

20, 1999, which did not make any 

substantive changes, but adopted a reorganization and renumbering of the air 

quality regulations. Although EPA is not 

acting on this particular submittal, EPA 

is approving and incorporating by 

reference rules using this new 

numbering scheme. Approving these 

rules rather than the earlier version will 

avoid confusion to the public and will 

obviate the need for future SIP revisions 

merely to renumber the SIP. In the 

remainder of this notice, we will refer 

to the rules by their current numbers, as 

reflected in the September 20, 1999 

submittal, unless the context dictates 

otherwise. 

EPA is acting on the submittal of 

September 7, 1999, which addresses 

inventory requirements for emissions 

from landfills. EPA is approving only 

the emission inventory requirement for 

larger landfills, located at Utah Rule 

R307–221–1 under the State’s new 

numbering system. As emissions from 

these larger landfills may exceed the 

emission reporting thresholds addressed 

in the CERR, Utah must include this 

information in its emission inventory 

report to EPA. The remainder of the 

September 7, 1999 revisions do not 

affect the State’s ability to comply with 

the CERR; therefore, EPA is not acting 

on them. 

The Governor submitted additional 

revisions to their air quality emission 

inventory rules on October 23, 2000, 

which addressed inventory 

requirements for ammonia emissions. 

These revisions are contrary to the 

CERR issued on June 10, 2002 and, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1900 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

therefore, EPA is not acting on the 

October 23, 2000 SIP. 

The December 1, 2003 submittal 

adopted the requirements of the CERR 

by way of revisions to Utah Rule R307– 

150. In this action, we are approving 

and incorporating by reference Utah 

Rule R307–150, with the exception of 

two of its subparts, R307–150–4 and 

R308–150–8. EPA is not approving and 

incorporating R307–150–4 because it 

addresses inventory requirements for 

the Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan and the Regional Haze regulatory 

requirements have changed since the 

2003 submission. EPA is also not 

approving R307–150–8, which exempts 

specific Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAPs) from being reported in emission 

inventories if the amount of the 

emissions falls below a specific limit. 

EPA is not acting on this part of the 

submittal because the CERR does not 

require that HAPs emissions be reported 

to EPA. 

The intended effect of today’s action 

is to approve only those portions from 

the State’s submittals that add CERR 

requirements. This action is being taken 

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act. 

DATES: This rule is effective on March 

16, 2009 without further notice, unless 

EPA receives adverse comment by 

February 13, 2009. If adverse comment 

is received, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal of this 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–2007–1031, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: videtich.callie@epa.gov and 

komp.mark@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

• Mail: Callie Videtich, Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Callie Videtich, 

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–2007– 

1031. 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:// 

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: 

Mark Komp, Air Program, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Mailcode: 8P-AR, 

Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (303) 

312–6022, komp.mark@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. General Information 

II. Background of State’s Submittals 

III. EPA Analysis of State’s Submittals 

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 Utah mean the 

State of Utah, 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. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1901 

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 State’s Submittals 

The Consolidated Emission Reporting 

Rule (CERR), 40 CFR 51, simplifies and 

consolidates emission inventory 

reporting requirements for the statewide 

reporting of ammonia (NH3), carbon 

monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen 

dioxide (NOX), particulate matter (PM10

and PM2.5), sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

volatile organic compounds (VOC) for 

point, nonpoint and mobile source 

emissions. Many State and local 

agencies asked EPA to develop the 

CERR in an effort to consolidate 

reporting requirements, increase the 

efficiency of emission inventory 

programs, and provide for more 

consistent and uniform data. The CERR 

was published on June 10, 2002 (67 FR 

39602). States were required to begin 

reporting emissions released during 

calendar year 2002. Thereafter, States 

are required to report large point source 

emissions annually and small point, 

nonpoint and mobile emissions every 

three years. 

We asked the State of Utah in our 

letter dated October 15, 2002 to update 

its emission reporting requirements to 

meet those specified in the CERR. We 

also asked the State to withdraw earlier 

SIP submittals regarding emission 

reporting requirements because the 

earlier submittals may have had 

conflicting requirements compared to 

those found in the CERR. The State 

complied with our request by using 

parts of earlier submittals and a 

subsequent SIP revision submittal in 

order to comply with the CERR. It is 

these submittals that EPA is acting on 

today. 

III. EPA Analysis of State’s Submittals 

We address four Utah SIP submittals 

in today’s action: 

• September 7, 1999 submittal, which 

consists of Utah’s original revisions to 

the rules for collecting inventories of air 

pollution emissions prior to the 

issuance of the CERR; 

• September 20, 1999 submittal, 

which consists of a reorganization of all 

Utah’s air quality rules and represents 

no substantive change in Utah’s 

regulations with regard to the CERR; 

• October 23, 2000 submittal, which 

deleted Utah’s required reporting of NH3

emissions; and 

• December 1, 2003 submittal, which 

consists of Utah’s revisions to its rule 

for emission inventories incorporating 

the requirements of the CERR. 

We note that in this action we are 

approving and incorporating by 

reference rules that were re-numbered 

and re-titled in the Governor’s 

reorganization submittal of September 

20, 1999 as these represent the current 

version of the State rule. The air 

program regulations were previously 

numbered R307–1 through R307–410 

are now located at Rules R307–100 

through R307–800. Approving these 

rules rather than the earlier version will 

avoid confusion to the public and will 

obviate the need for a future SIP 

revision merely to re-number the 

regulations. Though we are not acting 

on the submittal itself, in this notice we 

will refer to the rule by its current 

numbers as reflected in the September 

20, 1999 SIP submittal, unless the 

context dictates otherwise. 

On September 7, 1999, the State of 

Utah submitted Utah Air Quality 

Emission Inventory Rules R307–150, 

R307–155, R307–158 and R307–221, 

which address emissions from landfills 

and together comprise a re-numbered 

and re-titled version of Rules R307–1– 

2, R307–1–3 and R307–21. The State’s 

September 20, 1999 submittal showed 

Rules R307–150, R307–155, R307–158 

and R307–221 are identical to the text 

of the re-titled and re-numbered version 

of Rule R307–1–2, R307–1–3 and R307– 

21. The State submitted additional 

revisions to their air quality emission 

inventory rules on October 23, 2000, 

which deleted the requirement for 

emissions reporting of ammonia, located 

at Utah Rule 307–150–1, –3, and –4. In 

light of the CERR, the State replaced 

these revisions with its December 1, 

2003 submittal. The December 1, 2003 

submittal repealed rules R307–155 and 

R307–158 and amended Rule 307–150. 

Of these submittals, we are approving 

and incorporating by reference only 

Rules 307–150–1,–2,–3,–5,–6, and –7 

(general emission inventory 

requirements) and R307–221–1 

(emission inventory requirements for 

larger landfills) because they comprise 

the current version of the State rules 

that address the CERR requirements. 

On September 7, 1999, the State of 

Utah submitted to EPA a revision to 

Utah Rule R307–150 (originally Utah 

Rule R307–1–2 and R307–1–3) which 

included changes regarding the general 

applicability, reporting, timing of 

submittals and recordkeeping 

requirements for emission inventories as 

required by federal rule under 40 CFR 

51. In the same submittal, Utah revised 

its rules regarding emission inventory 

preparation and reporting for hazardous 

air pollutants (Rule R307–155 and 

R307–158). The revisions required that 

all sources of VOC that emit 10 tons per 

year or more and sources that emit 25 

tons per year or more of NOX in Utah 

and Weber counties must report to the 

State. Utah also revised Rule R307–221– 

1 regarding emission inventories for 

municipal solid waste landfills 

requiring that inventories be prepared 

for landfills with a design capacity 

greater than or equal to 2,755,750 tons 

in accordance with the general emission 

inventory requirements of Utah Rule 

R307–150. 

Within the September 7, 1999 

submittal, EPA is approving only the 

emission inventory requirement for 

landfills located at Utah Rule R307– 

221–1 under the State’s new numbering 

system since emissions from larger 

landfills may exceed the reporting 

thresholds addressed in the CERR and, 

therefore, require their inclusion in 

Utah’s emission inventory report to 

EPA. EPA is not acting on the remainder 

of the September 7, 1999 revision since 

they do not affect the State’s ability to 

comply with the CERR, the purpose of 

today’s action. 

On October 23, 2000, Utah submitted 

another revision to Utah Rule 307–150, 

which governs emission inventories. 

The State deleted all provisions that 

required the reporting of NH3 emissions, 

which were located in Utah Rule 307– 

150–1, –3, and –4. The State’s reasoning 

at the time was that NH3 emissions 

amounted to less than two percent of 

total emissions from industrial sources 

and, thus, there was no need to require 

point sources to submit the information. 

EPA never took action on the October 

23, 2000 submittal from the State due to 

the fact that the May 23, 2000 proposed 

rule for the CERR (65 FR 33268) 

specified that all states must document 

NH3 emissions as part of their emission 

inventory. 

EPA waited for the CERR to become 

final before taking action on Utah’s 

October 23, 2000 submittal. On June 10, 

2002, EPA published the final rule for 

the CERR (67 FR 39602). In our letter 

dated October 15, 2002, we advised 

Utah of its need to update its emission 

inventory reporting requirements to 

meet those specified in the CERR. We 

asked the State to withdraw the October 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
1902 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

23, 2000 submittal because it was now 

contrary to the CERR. 

Before EPA could take action on the 

October 23, 2000 submittal, the State 

submitted on December 1, 2003 a 

revision to its State SIP that changed its 

emission inventory requirements. This 

submittal replaced the emission 

inventory requirements in the October 

20, 2000 submittal and it is for this 

reason that we are acting only on the 

December 1, 2003 submittal. In this 

revision, the State rewrote Utah Rule 

R307–150 to incorporate CERR 

requirements. The State also 

consolidated all inventory collection 

requirements into Utah Rule R307–150 

and, as a result, repealed Utah Rules 

R307–155 and R307–158, where the 

prior inventory requirements were 

located. EPA is approving the version of 

Utah Rule R307–150–1,–2,–3,–5,–6, and 

–7, (but not –4 and –8) and the repeal 

of Utah R307–155 and Utah R307–158 

as they appear in the State’s December 

1, 2003 submittal as meeting the 

requirements of the CERR. 

The December 1, 2003 revision also 

included inventory requirements for the 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan, which we are not acting on in this 

action. Specifically, Utah Rule R307– 

150–4 adopts reporting requirements for 

stationary sources in Utah to determine 

whether sulfur dioxide emissions 

remain below the SO2 milestones 

established in the State Implementation 

Plan for Regional Haze. EPA is not 

acting on the provisions described in 

Utah Rule R307–150–4 in the December 

1, 2003 submittal, as the Regional Haze 

regulatory requirements have changed 

since the 2003 submission. We 

promulgated revisions to the Regional 

Haze Rule in response to the court’s 

opinion in Center for Energy and 

Economic Development (CEED) v. EPA, 

398 F. 3d 653 (DC Cir. 2005). Those 

revisions impacted the method for 

Section 309 States to use to demonstrate 

that the milestones in their alternative 

program provide for better reasonable 

progress than best available retrofit 

technology (BART). Rather than act on 

the 2003 submittal, EPA will wait for 

Utah’s regulations that address the 

revisions to the Regional Haze Rule. 

Utah Rule R307–150–8 exempts 

specific Hazardous Air Pollutants 

(HAPs) emissions from being reported to 

the State if the HAPs emissions were 

emitted in amounts less than a specific 

amount. EPA is not acting on this 

section of Utah Rule R307–150 since the 

CERR does not require that HAPs 

emissions be reported to EPA. 

Finally, Utah in its December 1, 2003 

submittal moved its definition of 

‘‘chargeable pollutant’’ from Utah Rule 

R307–415–9 to Utah Rule R307–101–2. 

The State’s reasoning was to apply the 

definition to all sources subject to 

emission inventory requirements rather 

than limit the definition applicability to 

sources subject to the Title V Operating 

Permit program, described in Utah Rule 

R307–415–9. Moving the definition to 

Utah Rule R307–101–2 would provide 

for its application to all sources. EPA is 

not acting on this because EPA’s 

approval is not needed and the revision 

does not affect the State’s ability to 

comply with the CERR. 

IV. Consideration of Section 110(l) of 

the CAA 

Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act 

states that a SIP revision cannot be 

approved if the revision would interfere 

with any applicable requirement 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress toward attainment of 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. The 

Utah SIP revisions that are subjects of 

this document do not interfere with 

attainment of the NAAQS or any other 

applicable requirement of the Act. The 

September 7, 1999, and December 1, 

2003 submittals EPA is acting on revise 

requirements for developing and 

submitting emission inventories by the 

State to EPA. As a result, they provide 

the ability to better explain to the public 

and regulated community the positive 

aspects of a consistent inventory 

program. It also provides public 

documentation of a source’s emissions. 

Disclosure of emissions will provide 

sources with significant incentives to 

minimize their emissions, comply with 

their emission limits, and protect the 

NAAQS and increments. Therefore, 

section 110(l) requirements are satisfied. 

V. Final Action 

For the reasons expressed above, we 

are approving the following portions of 

Utah’s submittals outlined in this 

action. 

• Utah’s Rule R307–221–1 as 

submitted to EPA on September 7, 1999 

• Utah’s Rule R307–150–1,–2,–3,–5,– 

6, and –7 (but not –4 and –8) and the 

repeal of Utah Rule R307–155 and Utah 

Rule R307–158 in their entirety as 

submitted December 1, 2003. 

EPA is publishing this rule without 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comments. 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 March 16, 2009 without 

further notice unless the Agency 

receives adverse comments by February 

13, 2009. If the EPA receives adverse 

comments, EPA will publish a timely 

withdrawal in the Federal Register 

informing the public that this 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. 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 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); 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 9 / Wednesday, January 14, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 1903 

• 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 March 16, 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. 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, Emission inventory 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 24, 2008. 

Stephen S. Tuber, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart TT—Utah 

■ 2. Section 52.2320 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(68) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2320 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(68) On September 7, 1999 and 

December 1, 2003 the State of Utah 

submitted revisions to its State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to 

incorporate the requirements of the 

Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule 

(CERR). The revisions update the State’s 

emission reporting rules so that they are 

consistent with the revisions EPA made 

to the CERR on June 10, 2002. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A). Title R307 of the Utah 

Administrative Code, Rule 307–221 

EMISSION STANDARDS: EMISSION 

CONTROLS FOR EXISTING 

MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE 

LANDFILLS, Rule 307–221–1, Purpose 

and Applicability. Effective January 7, 

1999. Published in the Utah State 

Bulletin, Volume 98, Number 22, 

November 15, 1998. 

(B). Title R307 of the Utah 

Administrative Code, Rule 307–150 

EMISSION INVENTORIES, Rule 150–1, 

Purpose and General Requirements; 

Rule 150–2 Definitions; Rule 150–3 

Applicability; Rule 307–150–5 Sources 

Identified in R307–150–3(2); Rule 307– 

150–6 Sources Identified in R307–150– 

3(3); Rule 307–150–7 Sources Identified 

in R307–150–3(4). Effective December 

31, 2003. Published in the Utah State 

Bulletin, Volume 23, Number 23, 

December 1, 2003. 

(ii) Additional Material. 

(A) October 15, 2002 letter from 

Richard Long, EPA Region VIII to Rick 

Sprott, Director, Utah Division of Air 

Quality (UDAQ) notifying UDAQ of the 

June 10, 2002 publication of the 

Consolidated Emission Reporting Rule 

(40 CFR Part 51, Subpart A) and the 

need for the State to update its emission 

inventory reporting requirements. 

[FR Doc. E9–520 Filed 1–13–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0524; FRL–8758–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Attainment Demonstration for the 

Dallas/Fort Worth 1997 8-Hour Ozone 

Nonattainment Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; conditional approval 

and full approval. 

SUMMARY: The EPA is conditionally 

approving the Dallas/Fort Worth (DFW) 

1997 8-hour ozone State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted on May 30, 2007 and 

November 7, 2008, as supplemented on 

April 23, 2008. This final conditional 

approval action is for the attainment 

demonstration SIP, which includes the 

2009 attainment Motor Vehicle 

Emissions Budgets (MVEBs), the 

Reasonably Available Control Measures 

(RACM) demonstration, and the failureto-attain contingency measures plan. 

The approval is conditioned upon Texas 

adopting and submitting to EPA prior to 

March 1, 2009, a complete SIP revision 

to limit the use of Discrete Emission 

Reduction Credits (DERCs), beginning in 

March 2009. If the State meets its 

commitment to submit the DERC SIP 

revision, EPA will undertake additional 

rulemaking action on the approvability 

of the DERC SIP revision and, if EPA 

approves that SIP revision, the 

conditional approval of the attainment 

demonstration will be converted to a 

full approval at that time. 

We are fully approving two local 

control measures relied upon in the 

attainment demonstration, the 

Voluntary Mobile Source Emission 

Reduction Plan (VMEP) and 

Transportation Control Measures 

(TCMs). We are also fully approving the 

DFW area SIP as meeting the 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) requirement for 

volatile organic compounds (VOCs) for 

both the 1-hour and 1997 8-hour ozone 

standards. These actions will result in 

emissions reductions in the DFW 8-hour 

ozone nonattainment area and meet 

section 110 and part D of the Act and 

EPA’s regulations. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket No. 

EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0524. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES