Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 22147 

Approved: April 17, 2009. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons set out in the 

preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 

CFR part 36 (Subpart C) as set forth 

below. 

PART 36—LOAN GUARANTY 

Subpart C—Assistance to Certain 

Disabled Veterans in Acquiring 

Specially Adapted Housing 

1. The authority citation for part 36 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501 and as otherwise 

noted. 

2. Add § 36.4412 to read as follows: 

§ 36.4412 Annual adjustments to the 

aggregate amount of assistance available. 

(a) On October 1 of each year, the 

Secretary will increase the aggregate 

amounts of assistance available for 

grants authorized under 38 U.S.C. 

2101(a) and 2101(b). Such increase will 

be equal to the percentage by which the 

Turner Building Cost Index for the most 

recent calendar year exceeds that of the 

next preceding calendar year. 

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of 

this section, if the Turner Building Cost 

Index for the most recent full calendar 

year is equal to or less than the next 

preceding calendar year, the percentage 

increase will be zero. 

(c) No later than September 30 of each 

year, the Secretary will publish in the 

Federal Register the aggregate amounts 

of assistance available for the upcoming 

fiscal year. 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 2102(e)) 

[FR Doc. E9–11079 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 51 and 52 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0021; FRL–8766–3] 

Stay of Clean Air Interstate Rule for 

Minnesota; Stay of Federal 

Implementation Plan To Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate 

Matter and Ozone for Minnesota 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to stay the 

effectiveness, in the State of Minnesota 

only, of two final rules issued under 

section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

related to the interstate transport of 

pollutants. On May 12, 2005, EPA 

issued the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). In CAIR, EPA required 

Minnesota and other states to submit 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions to limit nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions for 

the purpose of reducing the 

contributions these emissions make to 

particulate matter and ozone transport 

across state boundaries in the eastern 

half of the U.S. On April 28, 2006, EPA 

published Federal Implementation 

Plans (CAIR FIPs) containing 

requirements to serve as a backstop 

until replaced by an approved SIP. 

Subsequently, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that 

EPA had not properly addressed 

possible errors in the analysis 

supporting EPA’s decision that 

Minnesota should be included in the 

CAIR region for fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5). EPA is proposing to stay the 

effectiveness of CAIR and the CAIR FIP 

with respect to sources in Minnesota 

only, while EPA conducts a notice-andcomment rulemaking addressing this 

issue and its impact on the inclusion of 

Minnesota in CAIR. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before June 11, 2009. If anyone 

contacts us requesting a public hearing 

by May 22, 2009, we will hold a public 

hearing approximately 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Additional information about the 

hearing would be published in a 

subsequent Federal Register notice. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0021, by one of the 

following methods: 

• www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– 

OAR–2009–0021. 

• Fax: (202) 566–9744. Attention 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0021. 

• Mail: EPA Docket Center, EPA West 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0021, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mailcode: 2822T, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

• Hand Delivery: EPA Docket Center 

(Air Docket), Attention Docket ID No. 

EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0021, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1301 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 3334; 

Washington, DC. Such deliveries are 

only accepted during the Docket’s 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2009– 

0021. 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 information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. 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 e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through 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 and 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 docket 

are listed in the 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 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the EPA Docket Center EPA/DC, EPA 

West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public 

Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

excluding legal holidays. The telephone 

number for the Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the EPA Docket Center is 

(202) 566–1742. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim 

Smith, Air Quality Planning Division, 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
22148 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Mail Code C539–04, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: 919–541– 

4718; fax number: 919–541–0824; e-mail 

address: smith.tim@epa.gov. 

To request a public hearing, please 

contact Pam Long, Air Quality Planning 

Division, Office of Air Quality Planning 

and Standards, Mail Code C504–03, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: 919–541– 

0641; fax number: 919–541–5509 no 

later than May 22, 2009 to request a 

hearing. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Outline 

I. Background 

II. What is the Scope of this Proposal? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

I. National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions 

To Address Environmental Justice in 

Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations 

I. Background 

On May 12, 2005, EPA issued the 

CAIR. (70 FR 25162; May 12, 2005). In 

this rule, EPA found that 28 states and 

DC contribute significantly to 

nonattainment of the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) for fine 

particles and/or ozone in downwind 

states. The CAIR rule required these 

upwind states to revise their SIPs to 

include control measures to reduce 

emissions of SO2 and/or NOX. One of 

the states included in the CAIR region 

for fine particles was the State of 

Minnesota. Minnesota was thus 

required to reduce annual SO2 and 

annual NOX emissions in accordance 

with the requirements of the rule. 

Minnesota was not included in the 

CAIR ozone region. 

On April 28, 2006, EPA issued the 

CAIR FIP rule. (71 FR 25330; April 28 

2006). In this rule, EPA promulgated 

FIPs to implement the emission 

reduction requirements of the CAIR in 

all states covered by CAIR. The Agency 

issued the FIP requirements to provide 

a federal backstop for CAIR during the 

time period necessary for states to 

develop SIPs. EPA decided to adopt, as 

the FIP for each state in the CAIR region 

(including Minnesota), the SIP model 

trading programs in the final CAIR, 

modified slightly to allow for federal 

instead of state implementation. 

A number of petitioners brought legal 

challenges to various aspects of the 

CAIR, and of the CAIR FIP rule, in the 

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 

Circuit. Among the parties challenging 

the rule was Minnesota Power, an 

electric utility operating in Minnesota, 

who argued that EPA erred in including 

the State of Minnesota in the CAIR 

region for PM2.5. On July 11, 2008, in 

North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896, 

926–30 (D .C . Cir. 2008), the Court ruled 

on these challenges. The Court granted 

Minnesota Power’s petition because it 

concluded that EPA had failed to fully 

address alleged errors in its analysis for 

the State of Minnesota. The Court also 

noted that in EPA’s CAIR analysis, 

Minnesota’s contribution to PM2.5 was 

0.20 μg/m3, the exact minimum level for 

inclusion. 

On September 24, 2008, EPA filed a 

petition for rehearing with the D.C. 

Circuit. This petition sought rehearing 

of a number of the Court’s findings, but 

did not seek rehearing of the findings 

regarding Minnesota. On October 31, 

2008, EPA sent a letter to Minnesota 

Power indicating its intent to stay the 

effectiveness of CAIR with respect to 

sources located in the State of 

Minnesota. This letter was also 

submitted to the Court during briefing 

on the petitions for rehearing. 

On December 23, 2008, the D.C. 

Circuit granted EPA’s petition for 

rehearing only to the extent it remanded 

the case without vacatur. This decision 

will allow CAIR to remain in effect until 

EPA develops a replacement rule 

consistent with the July 11, 2008 

opinion. 

II. What is the Scope of this Proposal? 

EPA intends to conduct further 

rulemaking[s] in response to the DC 

Circuit Court’s remand of the CAIR rule. 

As part of that process, the Agency will 

evaluate the claimed errors in its 

contribution analysis for the State of 

Minnesota, and will provide notice-andcomment opportunity to the general 

public on our evaluation. Accordingly, 

in this action, EPA is proposing to stay 

the effectiveness of CAIR and the CAIR 

FIP with respect to the State of 

Minnesota and sources in the State of 

Minnesota only, during the pendency of 

the notice-and-comment rulemaking 

proceedings that will address whether 

Minnesota should be included in the 

CAIR region for PM2.5. 

EPA notes that allocations of CAIR 

NOX allowances for existing Minnesota 

sources for 2009 have already been 

recorded in the allowance tracking 

system under the annual NOX trading 

program in the CAIR FIP. EPA believes 

that, if the effectiveness of CAIR and the 

CAIR FIP were stayed as proposed with 

respect to Minnesota and sources in 

Minnesota, then all allowance 

allocations already recorded for 

Minnesota sources in order to 

implement the CAIR FIP should be 

removed from the annual NOX trading 

program. 

Under the proposed stay, Minnesota 

sources would not need to use their 

recorded allowance allocations to 

authorize their annual NOX emissions. 

Unless these allowances were removed 

from the trading program, the full 

amount of these allowances could be 

traded for use by non-Minnesota sources 

to authorize their own annual NOX

emissions. This would increase the total 

amount of allowances available for use 

by sources in the states that, under the 

proposed stay, would continue to be 

subject to CAIR and/or the CAIR FIP 

(i.e., the CAIR region except Minnesota). 

As a result, the total amount of 

allowances available for sources in these 

states would exceed the sum of the 

annual NOX trading budgets under CAIR 

and the CAIR FIP for these states. 

In order to preserve, under the 

proposed stay, the annual NOX emission 

reductions that were intended to be 

achieved under CAIR and the CAIR FIP 

and were reflected in the state annual 

NOX trading budgets under those rules, 

EPA proposes to require each Minnesota 

source with recorded allowance 

allocations under the annual NOX

trading program to hold an amount of 

allowances issued for the same year as 

the recorded allowances (e.g., 2009) 

equal to the amount of the recorded 

allocations. EPA also proposes that the 

Administrator deduct, and thereby 

retire, these required allowance 

holdings and that no additional 

allowance allocations from the state 

annual NOx trading budget for 

Minnesota be recorded. 

EPA understands that at least one 

Minnesota source has traded some of its 

recorded allowance allocations. 

However, EPA believes that the most 

reasonable approach for removing 

Minnesota sources’ recorded allowance 

allocations from the trading program is 

to require these sources to provide to 

the Administrator for deduction the 

allowances that must be removed. Each 

Minnesota source would accomplish 

this by continuing to hold allocated 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 22149 

allowances and, to the extent necessary 

to replace allocated allowances that it 

traded, obtaining other allowances 

issued for the same year as its traded 

allowances. Because all CAIR NOX

allowances issued for a given year (e.g., 

2009) under the annual NOX trading 

program in CAIR and the CAIR FIP are 

fungible, deduction of the proper 

amount of CAIR NOX allowances issued 

for that year has the desired effect 

whether the deducted allowances are 

Minnesota sources’ originally allocated 

allowances or allowances that were 

obtained from other sources. EPA 

believes that a deadline of June 30, 2009 

for Minnesota sources to hold the 

required allowances for deduction 

would provide sufficient time for 

Minnesota sources to obtain the proper 

amount of CAIR NOX allowances. While 

EPA’s preference is to remove these 

allowances from the trading program as 

quickly as possible, the Agency will 

consider a later deadline if public 

comments indicate that an earlier 

deadline places an unreasonable burden 

on Minnesota sources who must reacquire traded allowances. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This action is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under the terms of 

Executive Order (EO) 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore 

not subject to review under the EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320(b). This action 

does not impose any new obligations or 

enforceable duties on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, it does not impose an 

information collection burden. 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to prepare 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements under the 

Administrative Procedure Act or any 

other statute unless the agency certifies 

that the rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Small entities 

include small businesses, small 

organizations, and small governmental 

jurisdictions. 

For purposes of assessing the impacts 

of this rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of this proposed rule on small 

entities, I certify that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

This proposed rule will not impose any 

requirements on small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of the proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This action contains no Federal 

mandates under the provisions of Title 

II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform 

Act of 1995 (URMA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 

1538 for state, local, or tribal 

governments or the private sector. This 

action imposes no enforceable duty on 

any State local or tribal governments or 

the private sector. This action simply 

does not impose any new obligations or 

enforceable duties on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Therefore, this action is not subject to 

the requirements of sections 202 and 

205 of the UMRA. 

This action is also not subject to the 

requirements of section 203 of URMA 

because it contains no regulatory 

requirements that might significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. This 

action does not impose any new 

obligations or enforceable duties on any 

small governments. 

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that 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.’’ 

This action does not have federalism 

implications. It will 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. This rule does 

not impose any new obligations or 

enforceable duties on any state, local or 

tribal governments or the private sector. 

Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not 

apply to this rule. 

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, 

and consistent with EPA policy to 

promote communications between EPA 

and state and local governments, EPA 

specifically solicits comment on this 

proposed rule from state and local 

officials. 

F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This action does not have Tribal 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000). It will not have substantial direct 

effects on Tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 

This action does not significantly or 

uniquely affect the communities of 

Indian Tribal governments. As 

discussed above, this action imposes no 

new requirements that would impose 

compliance burdens. Thus, Executive 

Order 13175 does not apply to this 

action. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed action from 

Tribal officials. 

G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This action is not subject to 

EO 13045 because it imposes no new 

requirements. 

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This action is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 

2001)), because it is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
22150 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

This proposed rulemaking does not 

involve technical standards. Therefore, 

EPA is not considering the use of any 

voluntary consensus standards. 

J. Executive Order 12898—Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations 

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 

(Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of its programs, 

policies, and activities on minorities 

and low-income populations in the 

United States. 

The EPA has determined that this 

proposed rule will not have 

disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects 

on minority or low-income populations 

because it does not impose any 

regulatory requirements. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

40 CFR Part 52 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Air pollution control, 

Environmental protection, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide. 

Dated: May 6, 2009. 

Lisa P. Jackson, 

Administrator. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, parts 51 and 52 of chapter I 

of title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are proposed to be amended 

as follows: 

PART 51—REQUIREMENTS FOR 

PREPARATION, ADOPTION, AND 

SUBMITTAL OF IMPLEMENTATION 

PLANS 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 23 U.S.C. 101; 42 U.S.C. 7401– 

7671q. 

2. Section 51.123 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (a)(3) as 

follows: 

§ 51.123 Findings and requirements for 

submission of State implementation plan 

revisions relating to emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(3) Notwithstanding the other 

provisions of this section, the 

effectiveness of such provisions as they 

relate to the State of Minnesota is stayed 

as of [the effective date of the final rule]. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 51.124 is amended by: 

a. Redesignating paragraph (a) as 

paragraph (a)(1); and 

b. Adding a new paragraph (a)(2) as 

follows: 

§ 51.124 Findings and requirements for 

submission of State implementation plan 

revisions relating to emissions of sulfur 

dioxide pursuant to the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule. 

(a)(1) * * * 

(2) Notwithstanding the other 

provisions of this section, the 

effectiveness of such provisions as they 

relate to the State of Minnesota is stayed 

as of [the effective date of the final rule]. 

* * * * * 

4. Section 51.125 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (a)(3) as 

follows: 

§ 51.125 Emissions reporting 

requirements for SIP revisions relating to 

budgets for SO2 and NOX emissions. 

(a) * * * 

(3) Notwithstanding the other 

provisions of this section, the 

effectiveness of such provisions as they 

relate to the State of Minnesota is stayed 

as of [the effective date of the final rule]. 

* * * * * 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

5. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

6. Section 52.35 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (e) as follows: 

§ 52.35 What are the requirements of the 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) relating to 

emissions of nitrogen oxides? 

* * * * * 

(e) Notwithstanding paragraphs (a) 

and (b) of this section, the effectiveness 

of such paragraph as it relates to sources 

in the State of Minnesota is stayed as of 

[the effective date of the final rule], 

except as provided in § 52.1240(b)(1). 

7. Section 52.36 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (d) as follows: 

§ 52.36 What are the requirements of the 

Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) relating to 

emissions of sulfur dioxide? 

* * * * * 

(d) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of 

this section, the effectiveness of such 

paragraph as it relates to sources in the 

State of Minnesota is stayed as of [the 

effective date of the final rule]. 

8. Section 52.1240 is amended by 

adding a new paragraph (b) as follows: 

§ 52.1240 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of nitrogen 

oxides? 

* * * * * 

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of 

this section, 

(1) The effectiveness of such 

paragraph as it relates to sources in the 

State of Minnesota is stayed as of [the 

effective date of the final rule], except 

that the owner and operator of each 

such source in whose compliance 

account any allocation of CAIR NOX

allowances was recorded under the 

Federal CAIR NOX Annual Trading 

Program in part 97 of this chapter shall 

hold in that compliance account, as of 

June 30, 2009 and with regard to each 

such recorded allocation, CAIR NOX

allowances that are usable in such 

trading program, issued for the same 

year as the recorded allocation, and in 

the same amount as the recorded 

allocation. The owner and operator shall 

hold such allowances for the purpose of 

deduction by the Administrator under 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section; 

(2) After June 30, 2009, the 

Administrator will deduct from the 

compliance account of each source in 

the State of Minnesota any CAIR NOX

allowances required to be held in that 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 90 / Tuesday, May 12, 2009 / Proposed Rules 22151 

compliance account under paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section. 

(3) Starting no later than [the effective 

date of the final rule], the Administrator 

will not record any allocation of CAIR 

NOX allowances in the State trading 

budget for Minnesota for any year. 

9. Section 52.1241 is amended by: 

a. Redesignating the introductory text 

as paragraph (a); and 

b. Adding a new paragraph (b) as 

follows: 

§ 52.1241 Interstate pollutant transport 

provisions; What are the FIP requirements 

for decreases in emissions of sulfur 

dioxide? 

* * * * * 

(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of 

this section, the effectiveness of such 

paragraph as it relates to sources in the 

State of Minnesota is stayed as of [the 

effective date of the final rule]. 

[FR Doc. E9–11107 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–B–7786] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: On September 9, 2008, FEMA 

published in the Federal Register a 

proposed rule that contained an 

erroneous table. This notice provides 

corrections to that table, to be used in 

lieu of the information published at 73 

FR 52234. The table provided here 

represents the flooding source, location 

of referenced elevation, effective and 

modified elevation, and communities 

affected for Plymouth County, 

Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions). 

Specifically, it addresses the flooding 

source ‘‘Atlantic Ocean.’’ 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William R. Blanton Jr., Chief, 

Engineering Management Branch, 

Mitigation Directorate, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, 500 C 

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, 

(202) 646–3151 or (email) 

bill.blanton@dhs.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) publishes proposed 

determinations of Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and 

modified BFEs for communities 

participating in the National Flood 

Insurance Program (NFIP), in 

accordance with section 110 of the 

Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 

42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). 

These proposed BFEs and modified 

BFEs, together with the floodplain 

management criteria required by 44 CFR 

60.3, are the minimum that are required. 

They should not be construed to mean 

that the community must change any 

existing ordinances that are more 

stringent in their floodplain 

management requirements. The 

community may at any time enact 

stricter requirements of its own, or 

pursuant to policies established by other 

Federal, State, or regional entities. 

These proposed elevations are used to 

meet the floodplain management 

requirements of the NFIP and are also 

used to calculate the appropriate flood 

insurance premium rates for new 

buildings built after these elevations are 

made final, and for the contents in these 

buildings. 

Correction 

In the proposed rule published at 73 

FR 52234, in the September 9, 2008, 

issue of the Federal Register, FEMA 

published a table under the authority of 

44 CFR 67.4. The table, entitled 

‘‘Plymouth County, Massachusetts (All 

Jurisdictions)’’ addressed the flooding 

source ‘‘Atlantic Ocean.’’ That table 

contained inaccurate information as to 

the location of referenced elevation, 

effective and modified elevation in feet, 

or communities affected for this 

flooding source. In this notice, FEMA is 

publishing a table containing the 

accurate information, to address these 

prior errors. The information provided 

below should be used in lieu of that 

previously published. 

Flooding source(s) Location of referenced 

elevation 

*Elevation in feet 

(NGVD) 

+Elevation in feet 

(NAVD) 

# Depth in feet 

above ground 

Communities affected 

Effective Modified 

Plymouth County, Massachusetts (All Jurisdictions) 

Atlantic Ocean ....................... Approximately 150 feet south of intersection of Brant 

Beach Avenue and Ocean View Avenue.

+17 +19 Town of Hingham, Town of 

Hull, Town of Marion, 

Town of Mattapoisett, 

and Town of Wareham. 

Approximately 210 feet southeast of intersection of 

Highland Avenue and Mount Pleasant Way.

+9 +22 

Dated: April 30, 2009. 

Deborah S. Ingram, 

Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for 

Mitigation, Department of Homeland 

Security, Federal Emergency Management 

Agency. 

[FR Doc. E9–10988 Filed 5–11–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–12–P 


tjames on PRODPC75 with PROPOSALS