Revisions to the Arizona State PM-10 Implementation Plan; Maricopa County Air Quality Department, 58553-58554 [E9-27046]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
(ii) Proceed as directed by any
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
on board a vessel displaying a Coast
Guard Ensign.
(c) Definitions. Captain of the Port
Baltimore means the Commander, Coast
Guard Sector Baltimore or any Coast
Guard commissioned, warrant or petty
officer who has been authorized by the
Captain of the Port to act on his behalf.
Designated representative means any
Coast Guard commissioned, warrant or
petty officer who has been authorized
by the Captain of the Port Baltimore to
assist in enforcing the safety zone
described in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(d) Enforcement. The U.S. Coast
Guard may be assisted by Federal, State
and local agencies in the patrol and
enforcement of the zone.
(e) Enforcement periods. This section
will be enforced:
(1) From 6 p.m. through 8:30 p.m. on
November 19, 2009, and if necessary
due to inclement weather, from 6 p.m.
through 8:30 p.m. on November 20,
2009; and
(2) From 5:30 p.m. through 8 p.m. on
November 27, 2009, and if necessary
due to inclement weather, from 5:30
p.m. through 8 p.m. on November 28,
2009.
Dated: October 23, 2009.
Mark P. O’Malley,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Baltimore, Maryland.
[FR Doc. E9–27220 Filed 11–12–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–15–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0558; FRL–8975–6]
Revisions to the Arizona State PM–10
Implementation Plan; Maricopa County
Air Quality Department
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of
revisions to the Maricopa Air Quality
Department (MCAQD) portion of the
Arizona State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions were proposed in
the Federal Register on August 26, 2009
and concern particulate matter (PM)
emissions from non-metallic mineral
mining and processing in the Maricopa
County (Phoenix) serious PM–10
nonattainment area. We are approving
local rules that regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
58553
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective on January 8, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0558 for
this action. The index to the docket is
available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov and in hard copy
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street,
San Francisco, California. While all
documents in the docket are listed in
the index, some information may be
publicly available only at the hard copy
location (e.g., copyrighted material), and
some may not be publicly available in
either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the
hard copy materials, please schedule an
appointment during normal business
hours with the contact listed in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972–3368,
chilingaryan.sona@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On August 26, 2009 (74 FR 43085),
EPA proposed to approve the following
rule into the Arizona SIP.
Local agency
Rule #
Rule title
Adopted
Submitted
MCAQD ........................................
316
Nonmetallic Mineral Processing .......................................
3/12/08
7/10/08
We proposed to approve this rule
because we determined that it complied
with the CAA requirements for Best
Available Control Measures (Section
189(b)(1)(B)) and Most Stringent
Measures (Section 188(e)). Our
proposed action contains more
information on the rule and our
evaluation.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received comments from the
following parties.
1. Lawrence Odle, Director, MCAQD;
letter dated September 23, 2009 and
received September 25, 2009.
2. Joy E. Herr-Cardillo, Staff Attorney,
Arizona Center for Law in the Public
Interest (ACLPI); letter dated and
received on September 25, 2009.
The comments and our responses are
summarized below.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:06 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
Comment #1: MCAQD supports our
proposed approval of 316.
Response #1: No response necessary.
Comment #2: MCAQD provides
information related to MCAQD’s current
efforts and future plans to improve and
clarify Rule 316. MCAQD has initiated
a rulemaking process to revise the rule
to include alternative control measures
approved by MCAQD and EPA, has
formed a working group to evaluate the
Department’s experience with the
moisture testing and sampling protocols
related to the rule, and plans to separate
the requirements in Rule 316 for
different kinds of facilities into five
separate rules. In the current
rulemaking, the Department intends to
separate product transfer and
distribution facilities out of Rule 316,
and in the future also plans to separate
asphaltic concrete batch plants, concrete
batch plants, inert landfills, and gypsum
and all types of mulch.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Response #2: This comment addresses
MCAQD’s future plans and was
provided for information purposes only.
It does not affect EPA’s proposed action
on the March 12, 2008 version of Rule
316, and no further response is
necessary.
Comment #3: MCAQD comments that
Table 1 in 74 FR 43085 incorrectly
refers to 3/10/08 as the adoption date for
the rule, and notes that the correct date
is 3/12/08.
Response #3: We agree. There was a
typographical error in the adoption date.
We do not believe this error is likely to
result in significant confusion since
only one version of the rule was
adopted in 2008, and the previous
version was adopted in 2005.
Comment #4: ACLPI comments that in
August 2009 it notified us of its intent
to take legal action against EPA for
failure to act on Rule 316. ACLPI
supports the proposed approval and the
increased stringency of Rule 316.
E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM
13NOR1
58554
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 218 / Friday, November 13, 2009 / Rules and Regulations
Comment #4: No response necessary.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the
relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
Act, EPA is fully approving this rule
into the Arizona SIP as meeting the
requirements of sections 189(b)(1)(B)
and 188(e).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
State choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:06 Nov 12, 2009
Jkt 220001
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the State, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by January 12, 2010.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 5, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
■
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart D—Arizona
2. Section 52.120 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(141)(i)(B)(2) to
read as follows:
■
§ 52.120
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(141) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Rule 316, ‘‘Nonmetallic Mineral
Processing,’’ adopted on
March 12, 2008.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E9–27046 Filed 11–12–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 300
[EPA–HQ–SFUND–1983–0002; FRL–8979–2]
National Oil and Hazardous Substance
Pollution Contingency Plan; National
Priorities List: Partial Deletion of the
California Gulch Superfund Site
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 8 is publishing a
direct final rule, a Notice of Partial
Deletion of the California Gulch
Superfund Site (Site), located in Lake
County, Colorado, including all of
Operable Unit 8 (OU8), from the
National Priorities List (NPL). The NPL,
promulgated pursuant to section 105 of
the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, as amended, is
an appendix of the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan (NCP). This direct
final partial deletion is being published
by EPA with the concurrence of the
State of Colorado, through the Colorado
Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) because EPA has
determined that all appropriate
response actions at these identified
parcels under CERCLA, other than
operation, maintenance, and five-year
reviews, have been completed.
However, this partial deletion does not
preclude future actions under
Superfund.
This partial deletion pertains to all of
OU8 including the impounded tailing,
non-residential area soils, waste rock,
fluvial tailing and stream sediment. The
E:\FR\FM\13NOR1.SGM
13NOR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 218 (Friday, November 13, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58553-58554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-27046]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0558; FRL-8975-6]
Revisions to the Arizona State PM-10 Implementation Plan;
Maricopa County Air Quality Department
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Maricopa Air
Quality Department (MCAQD) portion of the Arizona State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions were proposed in the Federal Register on
August 26, 2009 and concern particulate matter (PM) emissions from non-
metallic mineral mining and processing in the Maricopa County (Phoenix)
serious PM-10 nonattainment area. We are approving local rules that
regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on January 8, 2010.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0558 for
this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
https://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the
docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly
available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material),
and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI).
To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment
during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3368, chilingaryan.sona@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On August 26, 2009 (74 FR 43085), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the Arizona SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCAQD............................... 316 Nonmetallic Mineral 3/12/08 7/10/08
Processing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complied with the CAA requirements for Best Available Control Measures
(Section 189(b)(1)(B)) and Most Stringent Measures (Section 188(e)).
Our proposed action contains more information on the rule and our
evaluation.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following parties.
1. Lawrence Odle, Director, MCAQD; letter dated September 23, 2009
and received September 25, 2009.
2. Joy E. Herr-Cardillo, Staff Attorney, Arizona Center for Law in
the Public Interest (ACLPI); letter dated and received on September 25,
2009.
The comments and our responses are summarized below.
Comment #1: MCAQD supports our proposed approval of 316.
Response #1: No response necessary.
Comment #2: MCAQD provides information related to MCAQD's current
efforts and future plans to improve and clarify Rule 316. MCAQD has
initiated a rulemaking process to revise the rule to include
alternative control measures approved by MCAQD and EPA, has formed a
working group to evaluate the Department's experience with the moisture
testing and sampling protocols related to the rule, and plans to
separate the requirements in Rule 316 for different kinds of facilities
into five separate rules. In the current rulemaking, the Department
intends to separate product transfer and distribution facilities out of
Rule 316, and in the future also plans to separate asphaltic concrete
batch plants, concrete batch plants, inert landfills, and gypsum and
all types of mulch.
Response #2: This comment addresses MCAQD's future plans and was
provided for information purposes only. It does not affect EPA's
proposed action on the March 12, 2008 version of Rule 316, and no
further response is necessary.
Comment #3: MCAQD comments that Table 1 in 74 FR 43085 incorrectly
refers to 3/10/08 as the adoption date for the rule, and notes that the
correct date is 3/12/08.
Response #3: We agree. There was a typographical error in the
adoption date. We do not believe this error is likely to result in
significant confusion since only one version of the rule was adopted in
2008, and the previous version was adopted in 2005.
Comment #4: ACLPI comments that in August 2009 it notified us of
its intent to take legal action against EPA for failure to act on Rule
316. ACLPI supports the proposed approval and the increased stringency
of Rule 316.
[[Page 58554]]
Comment #4: No response necessary.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
this rule into the Arizona SIP as meeting the requirements of sections
189(b)(1)(B) and 188(e).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State,
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 12, 2010. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: October 5, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations 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 D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(141)(i)(B)(2) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(141) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Rule 316, ``Nonmetallic Mineral Processing,'' adopted on
March 12, 2008.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E9-27046 Filed 11-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P