### 2860 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules

submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, i.e., 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 in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy during normal business hours at the Air Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. Copies of the State submittal are available at the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, 629 East Main Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Irene Shandruk, (215) 814–2166, or by e-mail at shandruk.irene@epa.gov

.
**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  For further information, please see the information provided in the direct final action, with the same title, ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; Adoption of 8-hour Ozone Standard and Related Reference Conditions, and Update of Appendices, ’’ that is located in the ‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this Federal Register publication. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse

comment.

Dated: December 22, 2010. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011–489 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION**  **AGENCY**

**40 CFR Parts 60 and 63**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0051; EPA–HQ–OAR– 2007–0877; FRL–9253–5]** 

**RIN 2060–AQ59**

**National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants From the**  **Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry and Standards of**  **Performance for Portland Cement Plants** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The EPA is taking action on amendments to the National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) and Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants. The final rules were published on September 9, 2010. This action amends certain text in the final rules to clarify compliance dates and to restore the previously issued emission limits that we changed in the September 9, 2010 action. We are also correcting two minor typographical errors.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before February 17, 2011. If any one contacts EPA by February 2, 2011 requesting to speak at a public hearing, EPA will hold a public hearing on February 7, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–HQ– OAR–2002–0051, by one of the following methods:

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

• E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov.

• Fax: (202) 566–9744.

• Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutant From the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Docket, Docket ID No. EPA– HQ–OAR–2002–0051, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460. Please include a total of two copies. In addition, please mail a copy of your comments on the information collection provisions to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503.

• Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Standards of Performance (NSPS) for Portland Cement Plants Docket, Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2007–0877, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket’s normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002– 0051. EPA’s policy is that all comments received 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 information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The http://www.regulations.gov Web site is

an ‘‘ anonymous access ’’ system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through http:// www.regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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: All documents in the docket are listed in the http:// www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. Publicly available docket materials are available either electronically in http:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the EPA Docket Center, National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants from the Portland Cement Manufacturing Industry Docket, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to


### 2861 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules

4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Docket Center is (202)
566–1742.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Mr. Keith Barnett, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policies and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group (D243–02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number: (919) 541–5605; fax number: (919) 541–5450; e-mail address: barnett.keith@epa.gov. **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 

I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?

Categories and entities potentially regulated by this proposed rule include:

Category NAICS code 1 Examples of regulated entities

Industry ....................................................................................................................... ...................................... 327310 Portland cement plants. Federal Government ........................................................................................................................................ Not affected. State/local/Tribal government ........................................................................................................................... Portland cement plants.

1 North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this proposed action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.1340 (subpart LLL). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this proposed action to a particular entity, contact the person listed in the preceding **FOR FURTHER INFORMATION**
**CONTACT** section. B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http:// www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2002–0051. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CD–ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD–ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD–ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposed action is available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed action will be posted on the TTN’s policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. D. When and where would a public hearing occur?

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by February 2, 2011, a public hearing will be held on February 7, 2011. To request a public hearing contact Ms. Virginia Hunt, EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Sector Policy and Programs Division, Metals and Minerals Group (D243–02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number 919–541– 0832, e-mail address: hunt.virginia@epa.gov by the date specified above in the DATES section. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should also contact Ms. Virginia Hunt at least 2 days in advance of the potential date of the public hearing.

If a public hearing is requested, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA Headquarters, Ariel Rios Building, 12th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460 or at a nearby location.

II. Direct Final Rule

A direct final rule identical to the proposal is published in the Rules and Regulations section of today’s Federal Register . We are taking direct final action on the proposed amendments because we view the amendments as noncontroversial and anticipate no significant adverse comments. We have explained our reasons for the amendments in the direct final rule. If no significant adverse comments are received, no further action will be taken on the proposal, and the direct final rule will become effective as provided in that action.

If we receive significant adverse comments, we will withdraw only those provisions on which we received those comments. We will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register indicating which provisions will become effective and which provisions are being withdrawn. If part or the entire direct final rule in the Rules and Regulations section of today’s Federal Register is withdrawn, all comments pertaining to those provisions will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed amendments. We will not institute a second comment period on the subsequent final action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.

The regulatory text for the proposal is identical to that for the direct final rule published in the Rules and Regulations section of today’s Federal Register . For further supplementary information, the detailed rationale for the proposal and the regulatory revisions, see the direct final rule published in a separate part of this Federal Register

. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

Under Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is
not a ‘‘ significant regulatory action’’ and is, therefore, not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). ( See 75 FR 55029–30) This action is a correction to certain text in the final rules and is not a ‘‘major rule ’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). However, the final rules promulgated on September 9, 2010 were reviewed by OMB.


### 2862 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose any new information collection burden. This action adds clarifications and corrections to the final standards. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (75 FR 54970, September 9, 2010) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control numbers 2060– 0416 and 2060–0614. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions.

For purposes of assessing the impact of this rule on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business whose parent company has no more than 750 employees depending on the size definition for the affected NAICS code (as defined by Small Business Administration (SBA) regulations at 13 CFR 121.201); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.

After considering the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it does not add any additional regulatory requirements. D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531– 1538, requires Federal agencies, unless otherwise prohibited by law, to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Federal agencies must also develop a plan to provide notice to small governments that might be significantly or uniquely affected by any regulatory requirements. The plan must enable officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates and must inform, educate, and advise small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements.

This proposed rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or the private sector in any one year. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of section 202 and 205 of the UMRA.

This action is also not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA because it contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. This action contains no requirements that apply to such governments, imposes no obligations upon them, and will not result in expenditures by them of $100 million or more in any one year or any disproportionate impacts on them.

E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications ’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that 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. ’’

This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 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. None of the affected facilities are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this proposed rule.

In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed action from State and local officials. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Subject to the Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) EPA may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by Tribal governments, or EPA consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact
statement.

This proposed rule does not have Tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). It will not have substantial direct effects on Tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. The proposed rule imposes no new requirements on the one Tribally owned facility. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action. G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is based solely on technology performance.

H. Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)), because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order
12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 ( ‘‘NTTAA ’’ ), Public Law 104–113 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. VCS are technical standards ( e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling


### 2863 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 2011 / Proposed Rules

procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by VCS bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use available and applicable VCS.

This action does not involve changes to the technical standards related to test methods or monitoring methods; thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272) do not apply.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not involve specialconsideration of environmental justicerelated issues as required by Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), because it does not change any regulatory requirements, it merely corrects and clarifies existing requirements.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 60 and

63

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous substances, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: January 10, 2011. Lisa P. Jackson,

Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2011–765 Filed 1–14–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR** 

**Fish and Wildlife Service**

**50 CFR Part 17**

**[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044; MO 92210–0–0009]** 

**RIN 1018–AW86**

**Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical**  **Habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California**  **Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense)** 

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

**ACTION :**  Revised proposed rule; reopening of comment period.

**SUMMARY :**  We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, announce the reopening of the comment period on our August 18, 2009, proposed designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense ) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. We also announce revisions to the proposed critical habitat unit, as it was described in the proposed rule published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), and announce the availability of the draft economic analysis for the revised proposed critical habitat designation and an amended required determinations section of the proposal. We are reopening the comment period for an additional 30 days to allow all interested parties an opportunity to comment simultaneously on the revised proposed critical habitat, the associated draft economic analysis, and the amended required determinations section. Comments previously submitted need not be resubmitted and will be fully considered in preparation of the final rule.

**DATES :**  We will consider public comments received on or before February 17, 2011. Comments must be received by 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the closing date. Any comments that we receive after the closing date may not be considered in the final decision on this action.

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

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments to Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2009–0044.

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public Comments Processing, Attn: FWS–R8– ES–2009–0044; 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 comments on http:// www.regulations.gov. This generally means that we will post any personal information you provide us ( see the Public Comments section below for more information).

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Susan Moore, Field Supervisor, or Karen Leyse, Listing Coordinator, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, 2800 Cottage Way, Room W–2605, Sacramento, CA 95825; telephone 916–414–6600; facsimile 916–414–6713. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at
800–877–8339.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Public Comments

We intend that any final action resulting from this revised proposed rule will be based on the best scientific data available and will be as accurate and as effective as possible. We will accept written comments and information during this reopened comment period on our amended proposed designation of critical habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment of the California tiger salamander that was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), our draft economic analysis (DEA) of the proposed designation, and the amended required determinations provided in this document. We will consider information and recommendations from all interested parties.

Therefore, during this reopened comment period we request comments or information from the public, other concerned government agencies, the scientific community, industry, or other interested party on: (1) The proposed rule to designate critical habitat for the Sonoma County Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the California tiger salamander that was published in the Federal Register on August 18, 2009 (74 FR 41662), the revisions to proposed critical habitat described herein ( see Revisions to Proposed Critical Habitat section), and the DEA of the revised proposed designation; (2) the considered exclusion of critical habitat; and (3) the amended Required Determinations section provided in this document. We are particularly interested in comments concerning:

(1) The proposed critical habitat designation (which comprises a single critical habitat unit), as revised in this