55728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

NAAQS under section 107(d)(3) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). Further, finalizing 

this proposed action does not involve 

approving maintenance plans for the 

area as required under section 175A of 

the CAA, nor would it find that the area 

has met all other requirements for 

redesignation. Even if EPA finalizes the 

proposed action, the designation status 

of the Louisville area would remain 

nonattainment for the 1997 annual 

PM2.5 NAAQS until such time as EPA 

determines that the area meets the CAA 

requirements for redesignation to 

attainment and takes action to 

redesignate the area. 

This action is only a proposed 

determination that the Louisville area 

has attained the 1997 annual PM2.5

NAAQS. Today’s action does not 

address the 24-hour PM2.5 NAAQS. 

If the Louisville area continues to 

monitor attainment of the annual PM2.5

NAAQS, the requirements for the 

Louisville area to submit an attainment 

demonstration and associated RACM, a 

RFP plan, contingency measures, and 

any other planning SIPs related to 

attainment of the annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

will remain suspended. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this action is 

not subject to Executive Order 13211, 

‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 

22, 2001). This action proposes to make 

a determination based on air quality 

data and would, if finalized, result in 

the suspension of certain Federal 

requirements. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this rule 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act (5 U.S.C 601 et seq.). Because this 

rule proposes to make a determination 

based on air quality data, and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, it 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). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal applications because it will not 

have a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, on the relationship 

between the Federal Government and 

Indian tribes, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities between the 

Federal Government and Indian tribes, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

not have substantial direct effects on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999), because it merely 

proposes to make a determination based 

on air quality data and would, if 

finalized, result in the suspension of 

certain Federal requirements, and does 

not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the CAA. 

This proposed rule also is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045 ‘‘Protection of 

Children from Environmental Health 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it proposes to determine that air 

quality in the affected area is meeting 

Federal standards. 

The requirements of 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply because it would 

be inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when determining the attainment 

status of an area, to use voluntary 

consensus standards in place of 

promulgated air quality standards and 

monitoring procedures to otherwise 

satisfy the provisions of the CAA. This 

proposed rule does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paper Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

Under Executive Order 12898, EPA 

finds that this rule, pertaining to the 

determination of attainment of the fine 

particle standard for the bi-state 

Louisville (Indiana and Kentucky) area, 

involves proposed determinations of 

attainment based on air quality data and 

will not have disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on any 

communities in the area, including 

minority and low-income communities. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: August 9, 2010. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

Dated: August 27, 2010. 

Beverly H. Banister, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22850 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 799 

[EPA–HQ–OPPT–2009–0555; FRL–8428–8] 

RIN 2070–AB79 and RIN 2070–AC76 

Withdrawal of Proposed Rules; 

Discontinuing Rulemaking Efforts 

Listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rules; withdrawals. 

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing two 

proposed rules for which the Agency no 

longer intends to issue a final rule. This 

document identifies the proposed rules 

and explains the Agency’s decision not 

to pursue a final rulemaking at this 

time. This withdrawal of these proposed 

rules does not preclude the Agency from 

initiating the same or similar 

rulemaking at a future date. It does, 

however, close out the entry for these 

proposed rules in the EPA Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Agenda, published as part of 

the Unified Agenda of Federal 

Regulatory and Deregulatory Actions 

(Unified Agenda). Should the Agency 

decide at some future date to initiate the 

same or similar rulemaking, it will add 

an appropriate new entry to the EPA 

Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda to 

reflect the initiation of the action. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under docket 

identification (ID) number EPA–HQ– 

OPPT–2009–0555. All documents in the 

docket are listed in the docket index 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Although listed in the docket 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 in the electronic docket at 

http://www.regulations.gov, or, if only 

available in hard copy, at the OPPT 

Docket. The OPPT Docket is located in 

the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) at Rm. 

3334, EPA West Bldg., 1301 

Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, 

DC. The EPA/DC Public Reading Room 

hours of operation are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding 

legal holidays. The telephone number of 

the EPA/DC Public Reading Room is 

(202) 566–1744, and the telephone 

number for the OPPT Docket is (202) 

566–0280. Docket visitors are required 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 55729 

to show photographic identification, 

pass through a metal detector, and sign 

the EPA visitor log. All visitor bags are 

processed through an X-ray machine 

and subject to search. Visitors will be 

provided an EPA/DC badge that must be 

visible at all times in the building and 

returned upon departure. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

technical information contact: Robert 

Jones, Chemical Control Division 

(7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention 

and Toxics, Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460–0001; telephone 

number: (202) 564–8161; e-mail address: 

jones.robert@epa.gov. 

For general information contact: The 

TSCA-Hotline, ABVI-Goodwill, 422 

South Clinton Ave., Rochester, NY 

14620; telephone number: (202) 554– 

1404; e-mail address: TSCAHotline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Does this Action Apply to Me? 

This action is directed to the public 

in general, and may be of particular 

interest to those persons who follow 

proposed rules issued under the Toxic 

Substances Control Act (TSCA). Since 

others may also be interested, the 

Agency has not attempted to describe all 

the specific entities potentially 

interested. 

II. Why is EPA Issuing this Withdrawal 

Document? 

This document serves two purposes: 

1. It announces to the public that EPA 

is withdrawing certain proposed rules 

for which the Agency no longer intends 

to issue a final rule . 

2. It officially terminates the ongoing 

rulemaking activities, which allows the 

Agency to close out the individual 

rulemaking entries for these actions that 

appear in the Agency’s Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Agenda. 

All agencies publish Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Agendas describing 

regulatory actions they are developing 

or have recently completed. These 

Semi-Annual Regulatory Agendas are 

published in the Federal Register, 

usually during the spring and fall of 

each year, as part of the Unified Agenda. 

The Agency publishes the EPA SemiAnnual Regulatory Agenda to update 

the public about: Regulations and major 

policies currently under development, 

reviews of existing regulations and 

major policies, and rules and major 

policies completed or canceled since the 

last Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda. 

(See http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/ 

search/regagenda.html.) 

We believe our actions will be more 

cost-effective and protective if our 

development process includes 

stakeholders working with us to identify 

the most practical and effective 

solutions to problems and we stress this 

point most strongly in all of our training 

programs for rule and policy developers. 

The Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda is 

often used as a tool to solicit interest 

and participation from stakeholders. As 

such, EPA believes that the public is 

best served by a Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Agenda that reflects active 

rulemaking efforts. The withdrawal of 

these inactive rulemaking efforts will 

streamline the Semi-Annual Regulatory 

Agenda and allow the public to better 

identify and focus on those rulemaking 

activities that are active. 

For the individual reasons described 

in this document, the Agency has 

decided not to complete these actions at 

this time. By withdrawing the proposed 

rules, the Agency is eliminating the 

pending nature of that regulatory action. 

Should the Agency determine to pursue 

anything in these areas in the future, it 

will issue a new proposed rule and 

create a new entry in the Agency’s 

Semi-Annual Regulatory Agenda. 

III. Which Rulemakings are Being 

Withdrawn? 

The following two proposed rules are 

being withdrawn. The titles match that 

used in the Semi-Annual Regulatory 

Agenda, and the ‘‘RIN’’ refers to the 

regulatory identifier number assigned to 

the rulemaking effort in the SemiAnnual Regulatory Agenda. 

A. The Proposed Test Rule for Certain 

Chemicals on the ATSDR/EPA CERCLA 

Priority List of Hazardous Substances 

(RIN 2070–AB79) 

1. What was proposed? In the Federal 

Register issue of October 20, 2006 (71 

FR 61926) (FRL–8081–3), EPA 

published the ‘‘Proposed Test Rule for 

Certain Chemicals on the ATSDR/EPA 

CERCLA Priority List of Hazardous 

Substances’’ for the consideration of 

testing for four chemicals (chloroethane, 

hydrogen cyanide, methylene chloride, 

and sodium cyanide). The chemicals are 

listed on the Agency for Toxic 

Substances and Disease Registry 

(ATSDR)/EPA priority list of hazardous 

substances which is compiled under the 

Comprehensive Environmental 

Response Compensation and Liability 

Act (CERCLA). 

2. Why is it being withdrawn? In the 

proposal for this test rule, EPA 

explained that the reason EPA proposed 

to use its authority under section 4 of 

TSCA was to support ATSDR’s 

Substance Specific Applied Research 

Program, a program for collecting data 

and other information needed for 

developing health assessments pursuant 

to CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq. 

ATSDR had referred the chemicals 

subject to the proposed rule to EPA 

under authority of section 104(i) of 

CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9604(i). Since then, 

ATSDR has informed EPA that it no 

longer needs EPA to finalize this 

proposed rule. Therefore, OPPT is 

withdrawing this proposed test rule and 

removing it from the EPA Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Agenda. 

3. Where can I get more information 

about this action? EPA established a 

docket for this action under docket ID 

number EPA–HQ–OPPT–2002–0073, 

which is available at regulations.gov. 

See ADDRESSES for more detailed 

information about this docket. 

B. The Proposed Test Rule for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (RIN 2070– 

AC76) 

1. What was proposed? In the Federal 

Register issue of June 26, 1996 (61 FR 

33177) (FRL–4869–1), EPA published 

the ‘‘Proposed Test Rule for Hazardous 

Air Pollutants’’ (HAPs). This document 

proposed using EPA’s authority under 

section 4 of TSCA for testing 21 

chemicals that are listed as hazardous 

air pollutants under section 112 of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and solicited 

proposals for enforceable consent 

agreements. 

2. Why is it being withdrawn? EPA’s 

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), along 

with EPA’s Office of Research and 

Development (ORD), referred the 

chemicals subject to this proposed rule 

to OPPT for obtaining certain health 

effects data to assess the risk remaining 

after the imposition of technology-based 

emissions standards required by CAA 

section 112(d), 42 U.S.C. 7412(d). OPPT 

explained that the reason it proposed to 

use EPA’s authority under section 4 of 

TSCA was to support OAR and ORD in 

meeting EPA’s statutory obligation 

under CAA section 112(f), 42 U.S.C. 

7412(f). After the proposal was issued in 

1996, OAR and ORD informed OPPT 

that they no longer support the need for 

a final rule. Additionally, OPPT has 

determined that the record does not 

address scientific information 

developed since the original proposal 

was issued in 1996. Therefore OPPT is 

withdrawing this proposed test rule and 

removing it from the EPA Semi-Annual 

Regulatory Agenda. 

3. Where can I get more information 

about this action? EPA established a 

docket for this action under docket 

control number OPPTS–42187, which is 

available at regulations.gov. See 

ADDRESSES for more detailed 

information about this docket. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
55730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 177 / Tuesday, September 14, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799 

Environmental protection, Chemicals, 

Hazardous substances, Health, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: September 8, 2010. 

Stephen A. Owens, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22862 Filed 9–13–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–S 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R3–ES–2010–0062; 

92220–1113–0000–C6] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 90-Day Finding on 

Petitions To Delist the Gray Wolf in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and 

the Western Great Lakes 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of petition finding and 

initiation of status review. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, announce a 90-day 

finding on petitions to remove (delist) 

the gray wolf in the western Great Lakes 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife (List) established 

under the Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (Act). Based on our 

review, we find that the petitions 

present substantial scientific or 

commercial information indicating that 

removing the gray wolf in Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan from the List 

may be warranted. Therefore, with the 

publication of this notice, we are 

initiating a review of the status of the 

species to determine if delisting in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan is 

warranted. To ensure that this status 

review is comprehensive, we are 

requesting scientific and commercial 

data and other information regarding the 

gray wolf in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan. Based on the status review, 

we will issue a 12-month finding on the 

petitions, which will address whether 

any of the petitioned actions are 

warranted, as provided in section 

4(b)(3)(B) of the Act. 

DATES: To allow us adequate time to 

conduct this review, we request that we 

receive information on or before 

November 15, 2010. Please note that if 

you are using the Federal eRulemaking 

Portal (see ADDRESSES section, below), 

the deadline for submitting an 

electronic comment is 12:00 Midnight, 

Eastern Standard Time on this date. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit 

information by one of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. In the box that 

reads ‘‘Enter Keyword or ID,’’ enter the 

Docket number for this finding, which 

is [FWS–R3–ES–2010–0062]. Check the 

box that reads ‘‘Open for Comment/ 

Submission,’’ and then click the Search 

button. You should then see an icon that 

reads ‘‘Submit a Comment.’’ Please 

ensure that you have found the correct 

rulemaking before submitting your 

comment. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R3– 

ES–2010–0062, Division of Policy and 

Directives Management, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222, Arlington, VA 22203. We will 

post all information we receive on 

http://www.regulations.gov. This 

generally means that we will post any 

personal information you provide us 

(see the Request for Information section 

below for more details). 

After the date specified in DATES, you 

must submit information directly to the 

Regional Office (see FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below). 

Please note that we might not be able to 

address or incorporate information that 

we receive after the above requested 

date. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Ragan, Endangered Species 

Listing Coordinator, Midwest Regional 

Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1 

Federal Drive, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, 

55111, by telephone (612–713–5350), or 

by facsimile (612–713–5292). If you use 

a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD), please call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 

800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Request for Information 

When we make a finding that a 

petition to remove (delist) a species 

from the List of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife presents substantial 

information that the petitioned action 

may be warranted, we are required to 

promptly commence a review of the 

status of the species (status review). For 

the status review to be complete and 

based on the best available scientific 

and commercial information, we request 

information on the gray wolf in 

Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan 

from governmental agencies, Native 

American Tribes, the scientific 

community, industry, and any other 

interested parties. We seek information 

on: 

(1) The species’ biology, range, and 

population trends, including: 

(a) Habitat requirements for feeding, 

breeding, and sheltering; 

(b) Genetics and taxonomy; 

(c) Historical and current range 

including distribution patterns; 

(d) Historical and current population 

levels, and current and projected trends; 

and 

(e) Past and ongoing conservation 

measures for the species, its habitat or 

both. 

(2) The factors that are the basis for 

making a delisting determination for a 

species under section 4(a) of the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), 

which are: 

(a) The present or threatened 

destruction, modification, or 

curtailment of its habitat or range; 

(b) Overutilization for commercial, 

recreational, scientific, or educational 

purposes; 

(c) Disease or predation; 

(d) The inadequacy of existing 

regulatory mechanisms; or 

(e) Other natural or manmade factors 

affecting its continued existence. 

(3) Current or planned activities in the 

western Great Lakes region and their 

possible impacts on the wolf and its 

habitat; 

(4) Information concerning the 

adequacy of the recovery criteria 

described in the 1992 Recovery Plan for 

the Eastern Timber Wolf; 

(5) The extent and adequacy of 

Federal, State, and tribal protection and 

management that would be provided to 

the wolf in the western Great Lakes 

region as a delisted species; 

(6) Whether gray wolves in Minnesota 

alone; or in Minnesota and Wisconsin 

combined; or in Minnesota, Wisconsin, 

and Michigan combined constitute 

distinct population segments or entities 

that which may be removed from the 

List of Endangered and Threatened 

Wildlife under the Act; and 

(7) Information or data regarding the 

taxonomy of wolves in the western 

Great Lakes region. 

Please include sufficient information 

with your submission (such as scientific 

journal articles or other publications) to 

allow us to verify any scientific or 

commercial information you include. 

Submissions merely stating support 

for or opposition to the action under 

consideration without providing 

supporting information, although noted, 

will not be considered in making a 

determination. Section 4(b)(1)(A) of the 

Act directs that determinations as to 

whether any species is an endangered or 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS