### 24544 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules

1-Hour NAAQS Obligations That No Longer Apply in This Area

Two additional amendments to Ecology’s existing 1-hour maintenance plan have also been submitted for approval pursuant to 40 CFR 51.905(e)(1). In this submission, Ecology has submitted a maintenance SIP for the 8 hour NAAQS for this area that meets the requirements of CAA section 110(l) and section 193 of the CAA. Therefore, EPA proposes to approve these two amendments to the existing 1-hour ozone maintenance plan:

1. Removal of the obligation to submit a maintenance plan for the 1-hour NAAQS eight years after approval of the initial 1-hour maintenance plan; and

2. Removal of the State’s obligation to implement contingency measures upon a violation of the 1-hour NAAQS. Washington’s SIP submittal meets the CAA requirements for SIP submittals with respect to these two changes. III. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the section 110(a)(1) ozone maintenance plan, including its correlating implementing regulations, for Vancouver, Washington, submitted on January 17, 2007, as revisions to the federally enforceable Washington SIP. EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan and supporting rules for the Vancouver portion of the Portland-Vancouver AQMA because they meet the requirements of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(l) of the CAA. EPA is soliciting public comments on this proposed approval. EPA will consider these comments and address them before taking final action. IV. Washington Notice Provision

Washington’s Regulatory Reform Act of 1995, codified at Chapter 43.05 Revised Code of Washington (RCW), precludes ‘‘regulatory agencies ’’ , as defined in RCW 43.05.010, from assessing civil penalties under certain circumstances. EPA has determined that Chapter 43.05 of the RCW, often referred
to as ‘‘House Bill 1010, ’’ conflicts with the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) and (C) and 40 CFR 51.230(b) and (e). Based on this determination, Ecology has determined that Chapter 43.05 RCW does not apply to the requirements of Chapter 173–422 WAC. See 66 FR 35115, 35120 (July 3, 2001). The restriction on the issuance of civil penalties in Chapter 43.05 RCW does not apply to local air pollution control authorities in Washington because local air pollution control authorities are not ‘‘regulatory agencies ’’ within the meaning of that statute. See 66 FR 35115, 35120 (July 3, 2001).

In addition, EPA is relying on the State’s interpretation of another technical assistance law, RCW 43.21A.085 and .087, to conclude that the law does not impinge on the State’s authority to administer Federal Clean Air Act programs. The Washington Attorney Generals’ Office has concluded that RCW 43.21A.085 and .087 do not conflict with Federal authorization requirements because these provisions implement a discretionary program. EPA understands from the State’s interpretation that technical assistance visits conducted by the State will not be conducted under the authority of RCW 43.21A.085 and .087. See 66 FR 16, 20 (January 2, 2001); 59 FR 42552, 42555 (August 18, 1994). V. 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, the EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); • Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: March 3, 2010. Dennis J. McLerran, Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 2010–10644 Filed 5–4–10; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**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


### 24545 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an

‘‘anonymous access ’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in thebody of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location ( e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location ( e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the **FOR**
**FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT** section.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This proposal addresses the following local rules: 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**

**DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR**

**Fish and Wildlife Service**

**50 CFR Part 17**

**[Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2009–0042; 92210–1117–0000–B4]** 

**RIN 1018–AW56**

**Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical**  **Habitat for the Polar Bear in the United States** 

**AGENCY :**  Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule; reopening of comment period, and announcement of public hearings.

**SUMMARY :**  We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the public comment period on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the polar bear ( Ursus maritimus) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We also announce the availability of a draft economic analysis (DEA), corrections to our proposed boundaries for sea-ice critical habitat, our intention to hold two public hearings to provide the public with an opportunity to submit testimony on the proposed designation of critical habitat for the polar bear and on the DEA, and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period to allow all interested parties an opportunity to provide additional comment on the proposed rule, the associated DEA, corrections to our proposed boundaries for sea-ice critical habitat, and the amended required determinations section. If you submitted comments previously, you do not need to resubmit them because we have already incorporated them into the public record and will fully consider them in preparation of the final rule.

**DATES :**  Written Comments: We will consider comments we receive on or before July 6, 2010.

Public Hearings: We will hold two public hearings, one on June 15, 2010, from 7–10 p.m. in Anchorage, Alaska, and another on June 17, 2010, from 7– 10 p.m. in Barrow, Alaska. During the first hour of these meetings (from 7–8 p.m.), we will present information on the DEA and proposed critical habitat. Public comments will be taken from 8– 10 p.m.

**ADDRESSES :**  Written Comments: You may submit comments by one of the following methods:

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Please follow the instructions for submitting comments on Docket No. FWS–R7–ES–2009–0042.

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R7– ES–2009–0042; Division of Policy and Directives Management; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203.

Public Hearings:

• The Barrow, Alaska, public hearing will be held at In  ̃ upiat Heritage Center, 5421 North Star Street, Barrow, Alaska.

• The Anchorage, Alaska, public hearing will be held at Z.J. Loussac Public Library, 3600 Denali Street, Anchorage, Alaska.

For more information on the public hearings, see the Public Hearings section below.

We will post all comments, and transcripts of the public hearings on http://www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide to us ( see the Public Comments section below for more information).