[Federal Register: November 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 220)]
[Notices]
[Page 59157]
[DOCID:fr17no09-43]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. OR10-2-000]

Flint Hills Resources, LP, Complainant, v. Mid-America Pipeline
Company, LLC, Respondent; Notice of Complaint

November 9, 2009.
    Take notice that on November 5, 2009, Flint Hills Resources, LP
(FHR) filed a formal complaint against Mid-America Pipeline Company,
LLC (MAPL) pursuant to Rule 206 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure
of the Commission, 18 CFR 385.206; the Commission's Procedural Rules
Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.2 and sections 1(5),
8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U.S.C. App.
Sec. Sec.  1(5), 8, 9, 13, 15 and 16 (1988). FHR challenges the
justness and reasonableness of rate for transporting butane, isobutane,
natural gasoline, naphtha and refinery grade butane on MAPL's Northern
interstate pipeline system and seeks the prescription of new just and
reasonable rates and reparations and refunds, with interest for the
unjust and unreasonable rates that MAPL has charged FHR in the past for
such shipments.
    FHR certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the
contacts for MAPL.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's
answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before
the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and
protests must be served on the Complainants.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription''
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or call<PHONE_NUMBER> (toll free). For
TTY, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on November 25, 2009.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-27478 Filed 11-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 170 (Tuesday, September 7, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49925-49927]
[FR Doc No: 2021-19084]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0052; FRL-8876-02-R3]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maryland; Emissions Statement Requirement for the 2015 Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision formally submitted by the Maryland
Department of the Environment (MDE) on behalf of the State of Maryland.
The revision provides the State of Maryland's certification that its
existing emissions statement program satisfies the emissions statement
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2015 ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). EPA is approving the State of
Maryland's emissions statement program certification for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS as a SIP revision in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.

DATES: This final rule is effective on October 7, 2021.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA-R03-OAR-2021-0052. All documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index,
some information is not publicly available, e.g., 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 through
https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Adam Yarina, Planning & Implementation
Branch (3AD30), Air & Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.
The telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>. Mr. Yarina can also be reached
via electronic mail at<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On June 16, 2021 (86 FR 32006), EPA published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) proposing approval of a SIP revision for the State of
Maryland. In the NPRM, EPA proposed approval of Maryland's
certification that Maryland's emissions statement regulation meets the
emissions statement requirement of section 182(a)(3)(B) of the CAA for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS. The formal SIP revision was submitted by the
State of Maryland,

through the Maryland Department of the Environment, on July 6, 2020.

II. Summary of SIP Revision and EPA Analysis

    On July 6, 2020, the State of Maryland, through the MDE, submitted
a SIP revision to satisfy the emissions statement requirement of CAA
section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. EPA first approved
Maryland's SIP submittal satisfying CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) on October
12, 1994 (59 FR 51517) and has approved Maryland's submissions for
section 182(a)(3)(B) for each succeeding revision of the ozone NAAQS.
Maryland's emissions reporting requirements are codified in Code of
Maryland Regulations (COMAR) <IP_ADDRESS>-1 ``Emissions Statements.''
COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 requires sources that emit above specified
thresholds of Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) or Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOC) to submit an emissions statement to the State. The
emissions threshold for reporting varies according to the county in
which the source is located. The statement must be submitted by a
certified individual who can verify the source's actual emissions.
    In Maryland's July 6, 2020 SIP submittal, Maryland certifies that
the existing COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 ``Emissions Statements'' continues to
satisfy section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS because Maryland
has not made any changes since EPA's prior approval and COMAR
<IP_ADDRESS>-1 meets the CAA requirements for emission statements. EPA
finds that COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 continues to satisfy CAA section
182(a)(3)(B) because the existing rule is applicable to the entire
State of Maryland and requires stationary sources that emit
NOX or VOC to submit an emissions statement to the State
detailing the sources' emissions. EPA finds that Maryland's emissions
thresholds for stationary sources that are required to submit an
emissions statement meet CAA requirements in sections 182 (plan
submissions and requirements for ozone nonattainment areas) and 184
(Ozone Transport Region requirements). Therefore, EPA has determined
that COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1, which is currently in the Maryland SIP, is
appropriate to address the emissions statement requirement in section
182(a)(3)(B) and is approving this SIP revision.
    Other specific requirements of and the rationale for EPA's proposed
action are explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here. No
public comments were received on the NPRM.

III. Final Action

    EPA is approving, as a SIP revision, the State of Maryland's July
6, 2020 emissions statement certification for the 2015 ozone NAAQS as
approvable under CAA section 182(a)(3)(B). Maryland's emissions
statement certification certifies that Maryland's existing SIP-approved
emissions statement program under COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-1 satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 182(a)(3)(B) for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.

IV. 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
     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 8, 2021. 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 28, 2021.
Diana Esher,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the EPA amends 40 CFR part
52 as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart V--Maryland

0
2. In Sec.  52.1070, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an
entry for ``Emissions Statement Certification for the 2015 Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standard'' at the end of the table to read
as follows:

Sec.  52.1070   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
   Name of non-regulatory SIP       Applicable geographic    submittal    EPA approval date       Additional
            revision                        area                date                              explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Emissions Statement               State-wide..............       7/6/20  9/7/21, [insert      Certification that
 Certification for the 2015                                               Federal Register     Maryland's
 Ozone National Ambient Air                                               citation].           previously
 Quality Standard.                                                                             approved
                                                                                regulation at
                                                                                COMAR <IP_ADDRESS>-
                                                                                1 meets the
                                                                                emission
                                                                                statement
                                                                                requirements for
                                                                                the 2015 ozone
                                                                                NAAQS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-19084 Filed 9-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register: October 18, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 200)]
[Notices]
[Page 63832-63833]
[DOCID:fr18oc10-59]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2009-D-0568]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Draft Guidance for
Industry on Planning for the Effects of High Absenteeism to Ensure
Availability of Medically Necessary Drug Products

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by
November 17, 2010.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX:<PHONE_NUMBER>, or e-mailed to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-NEW and
title Draft Guidance for Industry on Planning for the Effects of High
Absenteeism to Ensure Availability of Medically Necessary Drug Products
(MNPs). Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets in the
heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Berbakos, Office of
Information Management, Food and Drug Administration, 1350 Piccard Dr.,
PI50-400Q, Rockville, MD 20850,<PHONE_NUMBER>,
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for
review and clearance.

Draft Guidance for Industry on Planning for the Effects of High
Absenteeism to Ensure Availability of Medically Necessary Drug Products

    The draft guidance recommends that manufacturers of drug and
therapeutic biological products and manufacturers of raw materials and
components used in those products develop a written Emergency Plan
(Plan) for maintaining an adequate supply of MNPs during an emergency
that results in high employee absenteeism. The draft guidance discusses
the issues that should be covered by the Plan, such as: (1) Identifying
a person or position title (as well as two designated alternates) with
the authority to activate and deactivate the Plan and make decisions
during the emergency; (2) prioritizing the manufacturer's drug products
based on medical necessity; (3) identifying actions that should be
taken prior to an anticipated period of high absenteeism; (4)
identifying criteria for activating the Plan; (5) performing quality
risk assessments to determine which manufacturing activities may be
reduced to enable the company to meet a demand for MNPs; (6) returning
to normal operations and conducting a post-execution assessment of the
execution outcomes; and (7) testing the Plan. The draft guidance
recommends developing a Plan for each individual manufacturing facility
as well as a broader Plan that addresses multiple sites within the
organization (for purposes of this analysis, we consider the Plan for
an individual manufacturing facility as well as the broader Plan to
comprise one Plan for each manufacturer). Based on FDA's data on the
number of manufacturers that would be covered by the draft guidance, we
estimate that approximately 70 manufacturers will develop an Emergency
Plan as recommended by the draft guidance (i.e., 1 Plan per
manufacturer to include all manufacturing facilities, sites, and drug
products), and that each Plan will take approximately 500 hours to
develop, maintain, and update.
    The draft guidance also encourages manufacturers to include a
procedure in their Plan for notifying CDER when the Plan is activated
and when returning to normal operations. The draft guidance recommends
that these notifications occur within 1 day of a Plan's activation and
within 1 day of a Plan's deactivation. The draft guidance specifies the
information that should be included in these notifications, such as
which drug products will be manufactured under altered procedures,
which products will have manufacturing temporarily delayed, and any
anticipated or potential drug shortages. We expect that approximately
two notifications (for purposes of this analysis, we consider an
activation and a deactivation notification to equal one notification)
will be sent to CDER by approximately two manufacturers each year, and
that each notification will take approximately 16 hours to prepare and
submit.
    This draft guidance also refers to previously approved collections
of information found in FDA regulations. Under the draft guidance, if a
manufacturer obtains information after releasing an MNP under its Plan
leading to suspicion that the product might be defective, CDER should
be contacted immediately<EMAIL_ADDRESS>in adherence to
existing recall reporting regulations (21 CFR 7.40) (OMB control number
0910-0249) or defect reporting requirements for drug application
products (21 CFR 314.81(b)(1)) and therapeutic biological products
regulated by CDER (21 CFR 600.14) (OMB control numbers 0910-0001 and
0910-0458, respectively).
    The following collections of information found in FDA current good
manufacturing practice (CGMP) regulations in part 211 (21 CFR part 211)
are approved under OMB control number 0190-0139. The draft guidance
encourages manufacturers to maintain records, in accordance with the
CGMP requirements (see, e.g., Sec.  211.180), that support decisions to
carry out changes to approved procedures for manufacturing and release
of products under the Plan. The draft guidance states: A Plan should be
developed, written, reviewed, and approved within the site's change
control quality system in accordance with the requirements in
Sec. Sec.  211.100(a) and 211.160(a); execution of the Plan should be
documented in accordance with the requirements described in Sec.
211.100(b); and standard operating procedures should be reviewed and
revised or supplementary procedures developed and approved to enable
execution of the Plan.
    In the Federal Register of January 8, 2010 (75 FR 1060), FDA
announced the availability of the draft guidance. In that Federal
Register notice, FDA provided the public with 60 days to comment on the
proposed collection of information. FDA received the following comments
that pertained to the information collection in the draft guidance.
    Some comments stated that pharmaceutical companies already have
business continuity plans that address shortages of medically necessary
products and that these plans take into account high absenteeism and
other factors that could affect production. FDA believes that a general
business continuity plan is unlikely to take into account individual
products or how execution of the plan would affect product quality.
    Some comments stated that the recommendation that the Plan be

maintained in the Quality System is burdensome and provides no value to
ensuring protection of public health. FDA agrees with these comments
and has revised the guidance to recommend that only the parts of the
Plan that could have an effect on product quality be reviewed and
approved by the Quality Unit before implementation of the Plan.
    One comment stated that with adequate inventory on hand, an
absenteeism-specific business plan might not be needed. FDA disagrees
with the comment. As we discussed in the guidance, potential shortages
could arise from emergencies not contemplated by inventory policy.
    One comment stated that establishing provisions to use resources
available at other sites will require significant effort. FDA
recommends that these provisions be considered as part of the overall
Plan for handling emergencies.
    Some comments suggested different timeframes for notifying FDA of
activation and deactivation of the Plan, stating that 1 day is too
short a time. FDA did not change its recommendation for 1-day
notification for Plan activation and deactivation because informing FDA
of this activity in as close to real time as possible will assist the
FDA in making critical decisions related to managing the causal event.
    Some comments stated that testing the implementation of the Plan
and producing test batches would be impractical and expensive. FDA
agrees with these comments and has revised its recommendation to test
the implementation of the Plan and removed its recommendation to
produce test batches of the drug product.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:

                                  Table 1--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
                                     Number of    frequency  per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                    respondents      response        responses       response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notify FDA of Plan activation                  2               1               2              16              32
 and deactivation...............
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............              32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

                                    Table 2--Estimated Recordkeeping Burden 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Annual
                                     Number of     frequency per   Total annual      Hours per      Total hours
                                   recordkeepers   recordkeeping      records         record
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Develop initial Plan............              70               1              70             500          35,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............  ..............  ..............          35,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of
  information.

    Dated: October 12, 2010.
Leslie Kux,
Acting Assistant Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-26103 Filed 10-15-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-P


[Federal Register: May 5, 2010 (Volume 75, Number 86)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 24544-24545]
[DOCID:fr05my10-34]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2010-0218; FRL-9135-4]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Placer
County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control 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 Placer County Air
Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), Sacramento Metropolitan Air
Quality Management District (SMAQMD), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and South Coast Air Quality
Management District (SCAQMD) portions of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from petroleum facilities, chemical plants,
and facilities which use organic solvents. 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 June 4, 2010.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2010-0218], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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 e-mail 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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This proposal addresses the following local
rules: PCAPCD Rule 216 Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing
Operations, SMAQMD Rule 466 Solvent Cleaning, SJVUAPCD Rule 4661
Organic Solvents, SCAQMD Rule 1173 Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Leaks and Releases from Components at Petroleum Facilities and Chemical
Plants. 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: March 18, 2010.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2010-10401 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P