Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Determination of Clean Data for the 1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standard, 48863-48865 [E9-23057]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
3. Section 52.36 is amended in
paragraph (c) by removing ‘‘[STATE
NAME]’’ and by adding, ‘‘Ohio’’, in its
place.
■ 4. Section 52.1870 is amended by
revising paragraph (c)(140) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.1870
Identification of plan.
CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(140) On July 15, 2009, and August
13, 2009, Ohio submitted rules
addressing the requirements of the
Clean Air Interstate Rule.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Ohio Administrative Code Rule
3745–109–01 ‘‘CAIR NOX annual, CAIR
SO2 and CAIR NOX ozone season
trading programs definitions and
general provisions.’’, Rule 3745–109–04
‘‘CAIR NOX allowance allocations.’’,
Rule 3745–109–07 ‘‘Monitoring and
Reporting.’’, Rule 3745–109–08 ‘‘CAIR
NOX opt-in units.’’, Rule 3745–109–11
‘‘CAIR SO2 allowance tracking system.’’,
Rule 3745–109–12 ‘‘CAIR SO2
allowance transfers.’’, Rule 3745–109–
13 ‘‘Monitoring and reporting.’’, Rule
3745–109–14 ‘‘CAIR SO2 opt-in units.’’,
Rule 3745–109–17 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone
season allowance allocations.’’, Rule
3745–109–18 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone season
allowance tracking system.’’, Rule 3745–
109–19 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone season
allowance transfers.’’, Rule 3745–109–
20 ‘‘Monitoring and reporting.’’, and
Rule 3745–109–21 ‘‘CAIR NOX ozone
season opt-in units.’’, adopted on July 6,
2009, effective on July 16, 2009.
(B) July 6, 2009, ‘‘Director’s Final
Findings and Orders’’, signed by Chris
Korleski, Director, Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency.
(C) Ohio Administrative Code Rule
3745–109–02 ‘‘CAIR designated
representative for CAIR NOX sources.’’,
Rule 3745–109–03 ‘‘Permits.’’, Rule
3745–109–05 ‘‘CAIR NOX allowance
tracking system.’’, Rule 3745–109–06
‘‘CAIR NOX allowance transfers.’’, Rule
3745–109–09 ‘‘CAIR designated
representative for CAIR SO2 sources.’’,
Rule 3745–109–10 ‘‘Permits.’’, Rule
3745–109–15 ‘‘CAIR designated
representative for CAIR NOX ozone
season sources.’’, and Rule 3745–109–16
‘‘Permits.’’, adopted on September 17,
2007, effective on September 27, 2007.
(D) September 17, 2007, ‘‘Director’s
Final Findings and Orders’’, signed by
Chris Korleski, Director, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency.
■ 5. Section 52.1891 is removed.
■ 6. Section 52.1892 is removed.
[FR Doc. E9–23254 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Sep 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0506; FRL–8962–4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania;
Determination of Clean Data for the
1997 Fine Particulate Matter Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the
Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana
Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster County),
Reading (Berks County), and York (York
County), Pennsylvania nonattainment
areas for the 1997 fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) have clean data for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is
effective on September 25, 2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2009–0506. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the electronic
docket, some information is not publicly
available, i.e., confidential business
information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy for public inspection during
normal business hours at the Air
Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650
Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose
Quinto, (215) 814–2182, or by e-mail at
quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document whenever
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean
EPA.
Organization of this document. The
following outline is provided to aid in
locating information in this preamble.
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. When Is This Action Effective?
IV. What Is EPA’s Final Action?
V. What Are the Statutory and Executive
Order Reviews?
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48863
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is determining that the
Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and
York nonattainment areas have clean
data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination is based upon quality
assured, quality controlled and certified
ambient air monitoring data that show
the area has monitored attainment of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006–
2008 data. In addition, quality
controlled and quality assured
monitoring data submitted during the
calendar year 2009, which are available
in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS)
database, but not yet certified, show that
these areas continue to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Other specific requirements of the
determination and the rationale for
EPA’s proposed action are explained in
the notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPR) published on July 31, 2009 (74 FR
38158) and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received in
response to the NPR.
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
This final action, in accordance with
40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends the
requirements for these areas to submit
attainment demonstrations, associated
reasonably available control measures,
reasonable further progress plans,
contingency measures, and other
planning state implementation plans
(SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as these areas
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
III. When Is the Action Effective?
EPA finds that there is good cause for
this approval to become effective on the
date of publication of this action in the
Federal Register, because a delayed
effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of the approval. The expedited
effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1), which provides that rule
actions may become effective less than
30 days after publication if the rule
‘‘grants or recognizes an exemption or
relieves a restriction’’ and 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date
less than 30 days after publication ‘‘as
otherwise provided by the agency for
good cause found and published with
the rule.’’ As noted above, this
determination of attainment suspends
the requirements for the Johnstown,
Lancaster, Reading, and York,
Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas
to submit an attainment demonstration,
associated reasonably available
measures, a reasonable further progress
plan, contingency measures, and any
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
48864
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
other planning SIPs related to
attainment of the standard for so long as
these areas continue to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. The suspension of these
requirements is sufficient reason to
allow an expedited effective date of this
rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In
addition, these nonattainment areas’
suspension from these requirements
provide good cause to make this rule
effective on the date of publication of
this action in the Federal Register,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The
purpose of the 30-day waiting period
prescribed in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give
affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before
the final rule takes effect. Where, as
here, the final rule suspends
requirements rather than imposing
obligations, affected parties, such as the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, do not
need time to adjust and prepare before
the rule takes effect.
IV. What Is EPA’s Final Action?
EPA is determining that the
Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and
York, Pennsylvania nonattainment areas
have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. This determination is based
upon quality assured, quality
controlled, and certified ambient air
monitoring data showing that these
areas have monitored attainment of the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006–
2008 data. This final action, in
accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will
suspend the requirements for these
areas to submit attainment
demonstrations, associated reasonably
available control measures, reasonable
further progress plans, contingency
measures, and other planning SIPs
related to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS for so long as each of these
areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
V. What Are Statutory and Executive
Order Reviews?
CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Sep 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
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).
B. Submission to Congress and the
Comptroller General
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
*
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by November 24, 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,
pertaining to the determination of clean
data for the 1997 fine particulate matter
standard for the Johnstown, Lancaster,
Reading, and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5
nonattainment areas, 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, Particulate matter.
Dated: September 15, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
■
40 CFR part 52 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 NN—Pennsylvania
2. Section 52.2059 is amended by
adding paragraph (d) to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2059
matter.
Control strategy: Particulate
*
*
*
*
(d) Determination of Clean Data. EPA
has determined, as of September 25,
2009, the Johnstown (Cambria and
Indiana Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster
County), Reading (Berks County) and
York (York County), Pennsylvania
nonattainment areas have clean data for
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. This
determination, in accordance with 40
CFR 52.1004(c), suspends the
requirements for these areas to submit
an attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available measures, a
reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of
the standard for as long as these areas
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 185 / Friday, September 25, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS.
[FR Doc. E9–23057 Filed 9–24–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid
Services
[CMS–1410–CN]
42 CFR Part 483
RIN 0938–AP46
Medicare Program; Prospective
Payment System and Consolidated
Billing for Skilled Nursing Facilities;
Correction
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare &
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects
technical errors that appeared in the
final rule published in the Federal
Register (74 FR 40288) on August 11,
2009 entitled, ’’Medicare Program;
Prospective Payment System and
Consolidated Billing for Skilled Nursing
Facilities for FY 2010; Minimum Data
Set, Version 3.0 for Skilled Nursing
Facilities and Medicaid Nursing
Facilities.’’
DATES: Effective Date: This correction is
effective October 1, 2009.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill
Ullman, (410) 786–5667.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In FR Doc. E9–18662 of August 11,
2009 (74 FR 40288), there were three
errors (two typographical errors and a
technical error in the wage index
values) that we are identifying and
correcting in section III—‘‘Correction of
Errors’’. The corrections in this notice
are effective as if they were included in
the final rule published on August 11,
2009. Accordingly, the corrections are
effective October 1, 2009.
CPrice-Sewell on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES
II. Summary of Errors
In the August 11, 2009 final rule, we
made two typographical errors in the
preamble that resulted in an incorrect
date being cited. First, on page 40293,
we stated that the ‘‘* * * final rule sets
forth a schedule of Federal prospective
payment rates applicable to Medicare
Part A SNF services beginning October
1, 2010.’’ We are correcting the date that
appears in this sentence so that it
correctly reads ‘‘October 1, 2009’’
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:49 Sep 24, 2009
Jkt 217001
consistent with Tables 2 and 3 (‘‘FY
2010 Unadjusted Federal Rate Per Diem
Urban’’ and ‘‘FY 2010 Unadjusted
Federal Rate Per Diem Rural’’), and with
the fiscal year (FY) 2010 effective date
for the Federal rates specified
throughout the preamble. In addition,
on page 40297, we made a typographical
error resulting in an incorrect date being
cited in describing the prospective
nature of the recalibration of the casemix weights. The purpose of the
paragraph where the date appears is to
explain that in order to avoid possible
negative consequences, the recalibration
of the case-mix weights is being
implemented on a prospective basis
only, and does not include a retroactive
recoupment of any overpayments
already made. We are correcting the
date that appears in the preamble, so
that it correctly reads ‘‘October 1, 2009’’
rather than ‘‘October 1, 2010’’,
consistent with the FY 2010 effective
date specified for the recalibration
throughout the final rule.
In addition, in the addendum to the
August 11, 2009 final rule, we are
revising an entry in Table B: ‘‘FY 2010
Wage Index Based on CBSA Labor
Market Areas for Rural Areas’’ in order
to correct a technical error arising from
the revision of wage data for two
inpatient prospective payment system
(IPPS) providers. We inadvertently
excluded the wage data for a hospital
that should have been included in the
wage index calculation, and included
the wage data for a hospital that should
have been excluded from the wage
index. Accordingly, we are revising the
wage index value displayed in Table B
for rural California from ‘‘1.2001’’ to the
corrected value of ‘‘1.2051’’. As this
revision involves only a single entry in
Table B, we are not republishing the
table in its entirety in this notice;
however, we note that the corrected
version of this table is available on the
SNF PPS Web site, which can be
accessed online at https://
www.cms.hhs.gov/SNFPPS/.
III. Correction of Errors
In FR Doc. E9–18662 (74 FR 40288),
make the following corrections:
1. On page 40293, in column 2, in the
first paragraph under Section III.B.1
(Federal Prospective Payment System),
in the first sentence, the date ‘‘October
1, 2010’’ is corrected to read ‘‘October
1, 2009’’.
2. On page 40297, in column 2, in the
last paragraph, in the first line from the
bottom, the date ‘‘October 1, 2010’’ is
corrected to read ‘‘October 1, 2009’’.
3. On page 40385, in Table B, in
column 3 of the table, in line 5, the
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
48865
wage index ‘‘1.2001’’ is corrected to
read ‘‘1.2051’’.
IV. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
and Delayed Effective Date
We ordinarily publish a proposed rule
in the Federal Register to provide a
period for public comment before the
provisions of a rule such as this take
effect in accordance with section 553(b)
of the Administrative Procedure Act
(APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). We also
ordinarily provide a 30-day delay in the
effective date of the provisions of a
notice in accordance with section 553(d)
of the APA (5 U.S.C. 553(d)). However,
we can waive both the notice and
comment procedure and the 30-day
delay in effective date if the Secretary
finds, for good cause, that a notice and
comment process is impracticable,
unnecessary, or contrary to the public
interest, and incorporates a statement of
the finding and the reasons for it in the
notice.
We find for good cause that it is
unnecessary to undertake notice and
comment rulemaking because this
notice merely provides technical
corrections to the regulations. We are
not making substantive changes to our
payment methodologies or policies, but
rather, are simply implementing
correctly the payment methodologies
and policies that we previously
proposed, received comment on, and
subsequently finalized. The public has
already had the opportunity to comment
on these payment methodologies and
policies, and this correction notice is
intended solely to ensure that the FY
2010 skilled nursing facility (SNF)
prospective system (PPS) final rule
accurately reflects them. Therefore, we
believe that undertaking further notice
and comment procedures to incorporate
these corrections into the final rule is
unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest.
Further, we believe a delayed
effective date is unnecessary because
this correction notice merely corrects
inadvertent technical errors. The
changes noted above do not make any
substantive changes to the SNF PPS
payment methodologies or policies.
Moreover, we regard imposing a delay
in the effective date as being contrary to
the public interest. We believe that it is
in the public interest for providers to
receive appropriate SNF PPS payments
in as timely a manner as possible and
to ensure that the FY 2010 SNF PPS
final rule accurately reflects our
payment methodologies, payment rates,
and policies. Therefore, we find good
cause to waive notice and comment
procedures, as well as the 30-day delay
in effective date.
E:\FR\FM\25SER1.SGM
25SER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 185 (Friday, September 25, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48863-48865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-23057]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0506; FRL-8962-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; Determination of Clean Data for the 1997
Fine Particulate Matter Standard
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is determining that the Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana
Counties), Lancaster (Lancaster County), Reading (Berks County), and
York (York County), Pennsylvania nonattainment areas for the 1997 fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is effective on September 25,
2009.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2009-0506. All documents in the docket are listed in
the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
electronic docket, some information is not publicly available, i.e.,
confidential business information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically through https://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for public inspection during normal
business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania 19103.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose Quinto, (215) 814-2182, or by e-
mail at quinto.rose@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
III. When Is This Action Effective?
IV. What Is EPA's Final Action?
V. What Are the Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is determining that the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and York
nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality assured, quality
controlled and certified ambient air monitoring data that show the area
has monitored attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS based on
the 2006-2008 data. In addition, quality controlled and quality assured
monitoring data submitted during the calendar year 2009, which are
available in the EPA Air Quality System (AQS) database, but not yet
certified, show that these areas continue to meet the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS.
Other specific requirements of the determination and the rationale
for EPA's proposed action are explained in the notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPR) published on July 31, 2009 (74 FR 38158) and will not
be restated here. No public comments were received in response to the
NPR.
II. What Is the Effect of This Action?
This final action, in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), suspends
the requirements for these areas to submit attainment demonstrations,
associated reasonably available control measures, reasonable further
progress plans, contingency measures, and other planning state
implementation plans (SIPs) related to attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as these areas continue to meet the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
III. When Is the Action Effective?
EPA finds that there is good cause for this approval to become
effective on the date of publication of this action in the Federal
Register, because a delayed effective date is unnecessary due to the
nature of the approval. The expedited effective date for this action is
authorized under both 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rule
actions may become effective less than 30 days after publication if the
rule ``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction''
and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30
days after publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good
cause found and published with the rule.'' As noted above, this
determination of attainment suspends the requirements for the
Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5
nonattainment areas to submit an attainment demonstration, associated
reasonably available measures, a reasonable further progress plan,
contingency measures, and any
[[Page 48864]]
other planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for so long
as these areas continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. The
suspension of these requirements is sufficient reason to allow an
expedited effective date of this rule under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In
addition, these nonattainment areas' suspension from these requirements
provide good cause to make this rule effective on the date of
publication of this action in the Federal Register, pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3). The purpose of the 30-day waiting period prescribed
in 5 U.S.C. 553(d) is to give affected parties a reasonable time to
adjust their behavior and prepare before the final rule takes effect.
Where, as here, the final rule suspends requirements rather than
imposing obligations, affected parties, such as the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, do not need time to adjust and prepare before the rule
takes effect.
IV. What Is EPA's Final Action?
EPA is determining that the Johnstown, Lancaster, Reading, and
York, Pennsylvania nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination is based upon quality
assured, quality controlled, and certified ambient air monitoring data
showing that these areas have monitored attainment of the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS based on the 2006-2008 data. This final action,
in accordance with 40 CFR 51.1004(c), will suspend the requirements for
these areas to submit attainment demonstrations, associated reasonably
available control measures, reasonable further progress plans,
contingency measures, and other planning SIPs related to attainment of
the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS for so long as each of these areas
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
V. What Are Statutory and Executive Order Reviews?
A. General Requirements
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
B. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
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).
C. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by November 24, 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, pertaining to the determination of clean data for
the 1997 fine particulate matter standard for the Johnstown, Lancaster,
Reading, and York, Pennsylvania PM2.5 nonattainment areas,
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, Particulate matter.
Dated: September 15, 2009.
William C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
0
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart NN--Pennsylvania
0
2. Section 52.2059 is amended by adding paragraph (d) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2059 Control strategy: Particulate matter.
* * * * *
(d) Determination of Clean Data. EPA has determined, as of
September 25, 2009, the Johnstown (Cambria and Indiana Counties),
Lancaster (Lancaster County), Reading (Berks County) and York (York
County), Pennsylvania nonattainment areas have clean data for the 1997
PM2.5 NAAQS. This determination, in accordance with 40 CFR
52.1004(c), suspends the requirements for these areas to submit an
attainment demonstration, associated reasonably available measures, a
reasonable further progress plan, contingency measures, and other
planning SIPs related to attainment of the standard for as long as
these areas
[[Page 48865]]
continue to meet the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS.
[FR Doc. E9-23057 Filed 9-24-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
