61662 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

long. 111°26′11′′ W., to lat. 34°58′47′′ N., 

long. 111°37′17′′ W., to lat. 34°43′58′′ N., 

long. 111°50′21′′ W., to lat. 34°45′01′′ N., 

long. 112°01′17′′ W., to lat. 34°54′24′′ N., 

long. 112°05′16′′ W., to lat. 35°08′10′′ N., 

long. 111°51′59′′ W., thence to the point of 

beginning. That airspace extending upward 

from 1,200 feet above the surface bounded by 

a line beginning at lat. 35°05′04′′ N., long. 

112°27′43′′ W., to lat. 35°11′22′′ N., long. 

110°52′43′′ W., thence clockwise along the 39 

mile arc to the point of beginning, excluding 

the Sedona, AZ, Class E airspace area. 

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on 

September 30, 2010. 

Lori Andriesen, 

Acting Manager, Operations Support Group, 

Western Service Center. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25200 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 63 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0680; FRL–9209–7] 

State of California; Request for 

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants; 

Perchloroethylene Air Emission 

Standards From Dry Cleaning Facilities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

California’s Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for Emissions of 

Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning 

and Water-Repelling Operations, 

Requirements for Perc Manufacturers, 

and Requirements for Perc Distributors 

to be implemented and enforced in 

place of the National Perchloroethylene 

Air Emission Standards for Dry 

Cleaning Facilities. EPA is proposing 

this action under section 112(l) of the 

Clean Air Act (CAA). We are taking 

comments on this proposal and plan to 

follow with a final action. 

DATES: Comments on California’s 

request for approval must be received 

on or before November 5, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0680, concurrently to EPA 

and the California Air Resources Board. 

Comments submitted to the California 

Air Resources Board should be mailed 

to the address below: 

Dan Donohoue, Chief, Emissions 

Assessment Branch, Stationary Source 

Division, California Air Resources 

Board, 1001 ‘‘I’’ Street, P.O. Box 2815, 

Sacramento, CA 95812. 

Comments sent to EPA should be 

submitted 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 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. 

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: Mae 

Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, 

wang.mae@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. California’s Submittal 

A. Amended Dry Cleaning ATCM 

B. Major Dry Cleaning Sources 

C. California District Rules 

D. California’s Authorities and Resources 

to Implement and Enforce CAA Section 

112 Standards 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

IV. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Under CAA section 112(l), EPA is 

authorized to delegate to State agencies 

the authority to implement and enforce 

the National Emission Standards for 

Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs). 

The Federal regulations governing 

EPA’s approval of State rules or 

programs under section 112(l) are 

located at 40 CFR part 63, subpart E. 

Under these regulations, a State has the 

option to request EPA’s approval to 

substitute a State rule for the 

comparable NESHAP. Under this ‘‘rule 

substitution’’ option, EPA is required to 

make a detailed and thorough 

evaluation of the State’s submittal to 

ensure that it meets the stringency and 

other requirements of 40 CFR 63.93. 

Upon approval the State is given the 

authority to implement and enforce its 

rule in lieu of the NESHAP. 

On September 22, 1993, EPA 

promulgated the NESHAP for 

perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaning 

facilities, which has been codified in 40 

CFR part 63, subpart M, National 

Perchloroethylene Air Emission 

Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities 

(dry cleaning NESHAP) (see 58 FR 

49354). On May 21, 1996, EPA approved 

a request submitted by the California 

Air Resources Board (CARB) for 

approval to implement and enforce 

California’s Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for Emissions of 

Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning 

Operations (original dry cleaning 

ATCM) in lieu of the dry cleaning 

NESHAP (see 61 FR 25397). 

On July 27, 2006, EPA amended the 

dry cleaning NESHAP (see 71 FR 

42743). In 2007, CARB revised 

California’s original dry cleaning 

ATCM. 

II. California’s Submittal 

A. Amended Dry Cleaning ATCM 

California’s Airborne Toxic Control 

Measure for Emissions of 

Perchloroethylene from Dry Cleaning 

and Water Repelling Operations, 

Requirements for Perc Manufacturers, 

and Requirements for Perc Distributors, 

sections 93109, 93109.1, and 93109.2, 

Title 17 of the California Code of 

Regulations (amended dry cleaning 

ATCM), became State law on December 

27, 2007. On July 15, 2009, CARB 

submitted a request to implement and 

enforce the amended dry cleaning 

ATCM in lieu of the dry cleaning 

NESHAP and the previously approved 

original dry cleaning ATCM. This 

request was submitted pursuant to the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61663 

provisions of 40 CFR 63.93 and found 

to be complete on August 13, 2009. 

The amended dry cleaning ATCM is 

implementing a ban on the use of perc 

in dry cleaning operations in California. 

Since January 1, 2008, there has been a 

prohibition on the installation or use of 

any perc dry cleaning machines at new 

facilities. Existing facilities must meet 

equipment and operational 

requirements until the existing 

machines are phased out in accordance 

with the time frames established in the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM. 

B. Major Dry Cleaning Sources 

Under the dry cleaning NESHAP, dry 

cleaning facilities are divided between 

major sources and area sources. CARB’s 

request for approval includes only those 

provisions of the dry cleaning NESHAP 

that apply to area sources. Thus, dry 

cleaning facilities that are major 

sources, as defined by the dry cleaning 

NESHAP, remain subject to the dry 

cleaning NESHAP and the CAA Title V 

operating permit program. 

C. California District Rules 

After the May 21, 1996, approval of 

the original dry cleaning ATCM, the 

following California District rules were 

approved in place of the dry cleaning 

NESHAP: 

District Rule Adoption date Approval date 

San Luis Obispo County APCD ... 432: Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations ............................ 11/13/1996 12/10/1997 

(62 FR 65022) 

South Coast AQMD ..................... 1421: Control of Perchloroethylene Emissions from Dry Cleaning 

Systems.

6/13/1997 5/13/1998 

(63 FR 26463) 

Yolo-Solano AQMD ..................... 9.7: Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning Operations ............................. 11/13/1998 1/28/1999 

(64 FR 4298) 

If the current submittal of the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM is 

approved, then the amended dry 

cleaning ATCM will replace the above 

rules from San Luis Obispo County Air 

Pollution Control District and YoloSolano County Air Quality Management 

District as the federally-enforceable 

regulation in those Districts for perc dry 

cleaning area sources. In the future, a 

District may request approval for a local 

rule under the provisions of 40 CFR 

§ 63.93. Until a request for delegation of 

a local regulation is submitted and 

approved by EPA, the amended dry 

cleaning ATCM would serve as the 

federally applicable regulation, with the 

one exception discussed below. 

In the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD), the 

previously approved version of Rule 

1421 would remain in place as the 

federally-enforceable regulation for perc 

dry cleaning area sources. The 

SCAQMD has asked to be excluded from 

the CARB request for delegation and 

intends to submit an amended version 

of Rule 1421 in a separate delegation 

request in the future. Therefore, if the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM is 

approved, then it will be the federally 

applicable regulation for perc dry 

cleaning area sources in all Districts of 

California except the SCAQMD. 

D. California’s Authorities and 

Resources To Implement and Enforce 

CAA Section 112 Standards 

Any request for approval under CAA 

section 112(l) must meet the approval 

criteria in 112(l)(5) and 40 CFR part 63, 

subpart E. To streamline the approval 

process for future applications, a State 

may submit for approval a 

demonstration that it has adequate 

authorities and resources to implement 

and enforce any CAA section 112 

standards. Approval of this 

demonstration will obviate the need for 

the State to resubmit in each subsequent 

request for approval its prior 

demonstration that it has adequate 

authorities and resources to implement 

and enforce the section 112 standard. 

As part of its original dry cleaning 

ATCM application, approved on May 

21, 1996, CARB also requested and 

received approval of California’s 

authorities and resources to implement 

and enforce all CAA section 112 

programs and rules, with the exception 

of the accidental release prevention 

program promulgated pursuant to CAA 

section 112(r) (see 61 FR 25397). 

Although approval of California’s 

authorities and resources did not result 

in delegation of the section 112 

standards, it obviated the need for 

California to resubmit a demonstration 

of these same authorities and resources 

for every subsequent request for 

delegation of section 112 standards, 

regardless of whether the State requests 

approval of rules that are identical to or 

differ from the Federal standards as 

promulgated. 

In CARB’s request for approval of the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM, 

submitted on July 15, 2009, CARB 

satisfied the need to submit certain 

demonstrations of legal authorities and 

resources by referencing the 

demonstrations contained in its original 

application, approved on May 21, 1996 

(see 61 FR 25397), and stating that those 

demonstrations are still applicable. By 

reference, those original demonstrations 

are considered a part of this current 

submittal. The approval of the original 

application contained a more detailed 

discussion of EPA’s evaluation of these 

demonstrations of legal authorities and 

resources, including a discussion of 

penalty authorities and variances. The 

May 21, 1996, action should be 

consulted for further information. 

III. EPA’s Evaluation 

When a State requests EPA’s approval 

to substitute a State rule for the 

applicable CAA section 112 Federal 

rule, EPA is required to ‘‘make a detailed 

and thorough evaluation of the State’s 

submittal to ensure that it meets the 

stringency and other requirements’’ of 

40 CFR 63.93 (see 58 FR 62274). After 

reviewing CARB’s request for approval 

of its amended dry cleaning ATCM (see 

docket for more information), EPA has 

determined that CARB’s request meets 

all the requirements necessary to qualify 

for approval under CAA section 112(l) 

and 40 CFR 63.91 and 63.93. 

While EPA notes that there are 

differences between the dry cleaning 

NESHAP and the amended dry cleaning 

ATCM because the regulations differ in 

structure and approach, the amended 

dry cleaning ATCM is designed to phase 

out the use of perc at dry cleaning 

facilities. For example, in addition to 

California’s previous prohibition of 

transfer, vented, and self-service perc 

dry cleaning machines, the sale or new 

lease of perc dry cleaning machines was 

prohibited as of January 1, 2008. The 

use of perc dry cleaning machines or 

perc water-repelling operations at new 

facilities was also prohibited, along with 

the use of drying cabinets and dip tanks. 

As of July 1, 2010, existing perc 

converted machines and perc dry 

cleaning machines at co-residential 

locations have been prohibited. Other 

machines are being phased out 

according to the age of the machine, and 

all remaining perc dry cleaning 

machines must be removed from service 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

61664 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 193 / Wednesday, October 6, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

by January 1, 2023. In the final analysis, 

EPA believes that approval of the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM will result 

in emission reductions from each 

affected sources that are no less 

stringent than would result from the dry 

cleaning NESHAP. Accordingly, EPA is 

proposing to grant California the 

authority to implement and enforce its 

amended dry cleaning ATCM in place of 

the dry cleaning NESHAP for area 

sources in the State of California, with 

the exception of the SCAQMD. 

IV. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

Because EPA believes California’s 

request meets all the requirements 

necessary to qualify for approval under 

CAA section 112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91 

and 63.93, we are proposing approval of 

the amended dry cleaning ATCM as a 

substitute for the dry cleaning NESHAP. 

We will accept comments on this 

proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we 

receive convincing new information 

during the comment period, we intend 

to publish a final approval action that 

will establish the amended dry cleaning 

ATCM as the federally-enforceable 

regulation in California, with the 

exception of the SCAQMD, for perc dry 

cleaning area sources. Although 

California would have primary 

implementation and enforcement 

responsibility, EPA would retain the 

right, pursuant to CAA section 112(l)(7), 

to enforce any applicable emission 

standard or requirement under CAA 

section 112. If this proposal is finalized, 

the amended dry cleaning ATCM would 

be the federally-enforceable standard in 

California and would be enforceable by 

the Administrator and citizens under 

the CAA. However, any provision of the 

amended dry cleaning ATCM that 

allows for the approval of alternative 

means of emission limitations must also 

receive approval from EPA before such 

alternatives can be used (e.g., Section 

93109(d)(27) and (38), and (i)(3)(A)(2)). 

Additionally, this delegation does not 

extend to the provisions regarding 

California’s enforcement authorities or 

its collection of fees as described in 

Sections 93109.1(c) and 93109.2(c) and 

(d), Title 17 of the California Code of 

Regulations. Approval of the amended 

dry cleaning ATCM does not in any way 

limit the enforcement authorities, 

including the penalty authorities, of the 

Clean Air Act. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a State delegation 

submission that complies with the 

provisions of the CAA and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7412(l); 

40 CFR 63.90. Thus, in reviewing 

delegation submissions, EPA’s role is to 

approve State choices, provided that 

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air 

Act. Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the 

submitted rule 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 63 

Environmental protection, 

Administrative practice and procedure, 

Air pollution control, Hazardous 

substances, Intergovernmental relations, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Authority: This action is issued under the 

authority of Title III of the Clean Air Act as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. 2399. 

Dated: August 30, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25127 Filed 10–5–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107] 

[92210 1111 0000-B2] 

RIN 1018-AV88 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; Endangered Status for the 

Altamaha Spinymussel and 

Designation of Critical Habitat 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, propose to list the 

Altamaha spinymussel (Elliptio 

spinosa), a freshwater mussel endemic 

to the Altamaha River drainage of 

southeastern Georgia, as an endangered 

species under the Endangered Species 

Act of 1973, as amended (Act), and to 

designate approximately 240 kilometers 

(149 miles) of mainstem river channel as 

critical habitat in Appling, Ben Hill, 

Coffee, Jeff Davis, Long, Montgomery, 

Tattnall, Telfair, Toombs, Wayne, and 

Wheeler Counties, Georgia. This 

proposed rule, if made final, would 

implement the Federal protections 

provided by the Act. 

DATES: We will consider comments 

received or postmarked on or before 

December 6, 2010. We must receive 

requests for public hearings, in writing, 

at the address shown in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section by 

November 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by one of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments on 

Docket no. FWS-R4-ES-2008-0107. 

• U.S. mail or hand-delivery: Public 

Comments Processing, Attn: FWS-R4- 

ES-2008-0107; Division of Policy and 

Directives Management; U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service; 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, 

Suite 222; Arlington, VA 22203. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS