44142 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

MCAQD ........................................................... 300 Visible Emissions ........................................... 03/12/08 07/10/08 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on this rule and our 

evaluation. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rules comply with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule 

into the Arizona SIP. 

IV. 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, 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 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. 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 27, 

2010. 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, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: July 7, 2010. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart D—Arizona 

■ 2. Section 52.120 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(141)(i)(B)(3) to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(141) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(B) * * * 

(3) Rule 300, ‘‘Visible Emissions,’’ 

amended March 12, 2008. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–18561 Filed 7–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 81 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2008–0391; FRL–9180–2] 

Determination of Attainment for PM– 

10; Fort Hall PM–10 Nonattainment 

Area, Idaho 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing its 

determination that the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area on the Fort Hall 

Indian Reservation in Idaho has attained 

the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard for particulate matter with an 

aerodynamic diameter of less than or 

equal to 10 microns (PM–10) under the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 44143 

Clean Air Act. EPA’s final 

determination that the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area has attained the 

24-hour PM–10 National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard is based on EPA’s 

review of complete, quality-assured air 

quality data for the three-year period 

ending December 31, 2009. Currently 

available preliminary data for 2010 

indicate that the area continues to attain 

the standard. 

EPA’s determination of attainment is 

not equivalent to a redesignation to 

attainment under Clean Air Act section 

107(d)(3). The Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area’s designation for 

PM–10 will remain moderate 

nonattainment until such time as the 

area is redesignated to attainment as 

provided in Clean Air Act section 

107(d)(3). 

DATES: This action is effective on 

August 27, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the information 

supporting this action are available for 

inspection at EPA Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Donna Deneen, EPA Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste, and Toxics (AWT–107), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 

98101, or at (206) 553–6706. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document wherever 

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean 

EPA. Information is organized as 

follows: 

Table of Contents 

I. What is the background for this action? 

II. What comments did we receive on the 

proposed action? 

III. What is our final action? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for this 

action? 

On May 13, 2010, EPA proposed to 

determine that the Fort Hall PM–10 

nonattainment area on the Fort Hall 

Indian Reservation in Idaho has attained 

the 24-hour PM–10 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) under 

the Clean Air Act. 75 FR 26898. We 

proposed this determination of 

attainment based upon three years of 

complete, quality-assured ambient air 

monitoring data that showed the area 

monitored attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS for the 2007–2009 monitoring 

period. Preliminary data available for 

2010 indicate that the area continues to 

attain the standard and show no 

exceedances of the standard in 2010. 

Additional background and our 

rationale for this determination can be 

found in the proposed rule. 

II. What comments did we receive on 

the proposed action? 

We received one comment letter on 

the proposed action, which supported 

our proposed action. 

III. What is our final action? 

We are finalizing our determination 

that the Fort Hall PM–10 nonattainment 

area on the Fort Hall Indian Reservation 

in Idaho has attained the 24-hour PM– 

10 standard, based on complete, qualityassured air monitoring data for 2007– 

2009, and currently available 

preliminary data for 2010. This 

determination of attainment is not a 

redesignation to attainment under CAA 

section 107(d)(3). The designation status 

in 40 CFR part 81 for the Fort Hall PM– 

10 nonattainment area will remain 

moderate nonattainment until such time 

as the area is redesignated to attainment 

as provided in CAA section 107(d)(3). If 

in the future EPA determines, after 

notice- and- comment rulemaking, that 

the area is no longer attaining the PM– 

10 NAAQS, EPA will publish such 

determination in the Federal Register. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

This action merely makes a 

determination of attainment based upon 

air quality and does not impose 

additional requirements. 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 rule 

merely makes a required determination 

based on air quality data and neither 

imposes substantial direct compliance 

costs on tribal governments, nor 

preempts tribal law. Therefore, the 

requirements of section 5(b) and 5(c) of 

the Executive Order do not apply to this 

rule. Consistent with EPA policy, EPA 

nonetheless provided a consultation 

opportunity to the Shoshone-Bannock 

Tribes in a letter to the Chairman of the 

Fort Hall Business Council, dated 

January 25, 2010, offering the Tribes the 

opportunity to consult on this 

determination and have meaningful and 

timely input into the proposed decision. 

EPA received no request from the Tribes 

for consultation on this determination. 

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 rules 

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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by September 27, 

2010. Filing a petition for 

reconsideration by the Administrator of 

this final action 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 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES
44144 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 28, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Dated: July 15, 2010. 

Michael A. Bussell, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10. 

[FR Doc. 2010–18564 Filed 7–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 271 

[EPA–R10–RCRA 2010–0251; FRL–9181–8] 

Washington: Final Authorization of 

State Hazardous Waste Management 

Program Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Washington has applied to 

EPA for final authorization of certain 

changes to its hazardous waste 

management program under the 

Resource Conservation and Recovery 

Act, as amended, (RCRA). On June 18, 

2010, EPA published a proposed rule to 

authorize the changes and opened a 

public comment period under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–RCRA–2010–0251. The 

comment period closed on July 19, 

2010. EPA has decided that the 

revisions to the Washington hazardous 

waste management program satisfy all of 

the requirements necessary to qualify 

for final authorization and EPA is 

authorizing these revisions to 

Washington’s authorized hazardous 

waste management program in this 

Final rule. 

DATES: Effective Date: Final 

authorization for the revisions to the 

hazardous waste management program 

in Washington shall be effective at 1 

p.m. EST on July 28, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA established a docket 

for this action under Docket ID No. 

EPA–R10–RCRA–2010–0251. All 

documents in the docket are available 

electronically on the Web site http:// 

www.regulations.gov. A hard copy of the 

authorization revision application is 

also available for viewing, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and 

Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue (AWT–122), 

Suite 900, Seattle, Washington 98101, 

contact: Nina Kocourek, phone number 

(206) 553–6502; or from the Washington 

State Department of Ecology, 300 

Desmond Drive, Lacey, Washington 

98503, contact: Robert Rieck, phone 

number (360) 407–6751. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nina Kocourek, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 10, Office of 

Air, Waste & Toxics (AWT–122), 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle, 

Washington 98101, phone number: 

(206) 553–6502, e-mail: 

kocourek.nina@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

A. Why are revisions to State programs 

necessary? 

States which have received final 

authorization from EPA under RCRA 

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must 

maintain a hazardous waste 

management program that is equivalent 

to, consistent with, and no less stringent 

than the Federal program. As the 

Federal program changes, States must 

change their programs and ask EPA to 

authorize the changes. Changes to State 

programs may be necessary when 

Federal or State statutory or regulatory 

authority is modified or when certain 

other changes occur. Most commonly, 

States must change their programs 

because of changes to EPA’s regulations 

in Title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR) parts 124, 260 

through 266, 268, 270, 273, and 279. 

B. What decisions have we made in this 

rule? 

EPA has made a final determination 

that Washington’s application to revise 

its authorized program meets all of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements 

established by RCRA. Therefore, we are 

granting Washington final authorization 

to operate its hazardous waste 

management program for the changes 

described in its revised program 

application. Washington will have 

responsibility for permitting treatment, 

storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs) 

within its borders, except in Indian 

country (18 U.S.C. 1151), and for 

carrying out the aspects of the RCRA 

program described in its revised 

program application, subject to the 

limitations of the Hazardous and Solid 

Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). 

New Federal requirements and 

prohibitions imposed by Federal 

regulations that EPA promulgates under 

the authority of HSWA, which are more 

stringent than existing requirements, 

take effect in authorized States before 

the State is authorized for these 

requirements. Thus, EPA will 

implement those requirements and 

prohibitions in Washington, including 

issuing permits, until the State is 

granted authorization to do so. 

C. What is the effect of this 

authorization decision? 

The effect of this action is that a 

facility in Washington subject to RCRA 

will have to comply with the authorized 

State requirements instead of the 

corresponding Federal requirements in 

order to comply with RCRA. 

Additionally, such persons will have to 

comply with any applicable Federal 

requirements, such as, HSWA 

regulations issued by EPA for which the 

State has not received authorization, 

and RCRA requirements that are not 

supplanted by authorized State-issued 

requirements. Washington has 

enforcement responsibilities under its 

State hazardous waste management 

program for violations of its currently 

authorized program and will have 

enforcement responsibilities for the 

revisions which are the subject of this 

final rule. EPA continues to have 

independent enforcement authority 

under RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, 

and 7003, which include,, among 

others, authority to: 

• Conduct inspections; require 

monitoring, tests, analyses, or reports; 

• Enforce RCRA requirements; 

suspend, terminate, modify or revoke 

permits; and 

• Take enforcement actions regardless 

of whether the State has taken its own 

actions. 

This action to approve these revisions 

would not impose additional 

requirements on the regulated 

community because the regulations for 

which Washington will be authorized 

are already effective under State law 

and are not changed by the act of 

authorization. 

D. What were the comments on EPA’s 

proposed rule? 

On June 18, 2010 (75 FR 34674), EPA 

published a proposed rule to grant 

authorization of changes to 

Washington’s hazardous waste 

management program subject to public 

comment. The public comment period 

opened on June 18, 2010 and ended on 

July 19, 2010. The Agency did not 

receive any comments on the proposed 

rule. 

E. What has Washington previously 

been authorized for? 

Washington initially received final 

authorization on January 30, 1986, 

effective January 31, 1986 (51 FR 3782), 

to implement the State’s dangerous 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with RULES