Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules 27737 

opt-in unit provisions. However, West 

Virginia’s rule still requires compliance 

initially with the Acid Rain Program 

requirement set forth in sections 73.35 

and 77.5 of the Acid Rain Program rules, 

which themselves require the use of 

only title IV allowances. Consequently, 

EPA interprets subsections 54.2.a.1 and 

54.2.a.2 to allow only for the use of title 

IV allowances. Moreover, since West 

Virginia’s rule defines ‘‘CAIR SO2

allowance’’ as including allowances 

allocated to CAIR opt-in units, EPA 

interprets subsections 54.2.a.3, 54.2.b, 

54.2.b.2, and 54.4.a to allow for the use 

of title IV allowances and allowances 

allocated to CAIR opt-in units. In a letter 

submitted to EPA on April 30, 2008, the 

West Virginia Department of 

Environmental Protection adopted this 

interpretation. 

VI. Proposed Action 

EPA is proposing to approve West 

Virginia’s full CAIR SIP revision 

submitted on April 22, 2008, as 

interpreted and clarified herein. EPA is 

proposing to approve the recodification 

and revision of provisions (in sections 

45–40–90 and 45–40–100) addressing 

NOX ozone season emission reduction 

requirements for internal combustion 

engines and cement kilns, none of 

which are included in the CAIR trading 

programs. Under the SIP revision, West 

Virginia is choosing to participate in the 

EPA-administered CAIR cap-and-trade 

programs for SO2, NOX annual, and NOX

ozone season emissions. The SIP 

revision, as interpreted and clarified 

herein, meets the applicable 

requirements of CAIR, set forth in 40 

CFR 51.123(o) and (aa), with regard to 

NOX annual and NOX ozone season 

emissions, and 40 CFR 51.124(o), with 

regard to SO2 emissions. EPA is 

soliciting public comments on the 

issues discussed in this document. 

These comments will be considered 

before taking final action. 

VII. 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 

proposes to approve 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 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 proposed approval of 

West Virginia’s SIP revision to meet the 

requirements of CAIR 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides. 

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

Dated: May 29, 2009. 

William C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. E9–13725 Filed 6–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2008–0831–200825(b); 

FRL–8915–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans Georgia: State 

Implementation Plan Revision 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Georgia 

Department of Natural Resources, 

through the Georgia Environmental 

Protection Division, on June 25, 2008. 

The revisions include modifications to 

Georgia’s Air Quality Rules found at 

Chapters 391–3–1–.01, and 391–3–1– 

.02, pertaining to ‘‘Definitions,’’ and 

‘‘Emission Limitations and Standards,’’ 

respectively. This action is being taken 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. 

In the Final Rules Section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before July 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2008–0831, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: harder.stacy@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: 404–562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008– 

0831,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
27738 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 111 / Thursday, June 11, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

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: Stacy 

Harder, 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 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Stacy Harder, 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. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9042. 

Ms. Harder can also be reached via 

electronic mail at harder.stacy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For 

additional information see the direct 

final rule which is published in the 

Rules Section of this Federal Register. 

Dated: June 1, 2009. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. E9–13593 Filed 6–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0230; FRL–8900–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay 

Unified Air Pollution Control District, 

Placer County Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Monterey Bay Unified 

Air Pollution Control District 

(MBUAPCD) and Placer County Air 

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) 

portions of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from 

storage tanks and the operation of steam 

drive crude oil production wells. We are 

proposing to approve local rules to 

regulate these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by July 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2009–0230, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. E-mail: 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 http://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 

http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 

http://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 e-mail 

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: The index to the docket for 

this action 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: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the following local 

rules: MBUAPQD 427 and PCAPQD 

212. 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 

planned. For further information, please 

see the direct final action. 

Dated: April 3, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. E9–13479 Filed 6–10–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0142, FRL–8901–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Antelope Valley 

Air Quality Management District and 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Antelope Valley Air 

Quality Management District 

(AVAQMD) and South Coast Air Quality 

Management District portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act), we are proposing to approve local 

rules that address particulate matter 

(PM–10) emissions from open outdoor 

fires and from wood burning devices. 

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by July 13, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS