Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 54805 

Variances, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 

Room 2350, Arlington, Virginia 22209– 

3939). 

The meetings will be conducted in an 

informal manner. Presenters and 

attendees may provide written 

information to the court reporter for 

inclusion in the rulemaking record. 

MSHA will make transcripts of the 

meetings available on MSHA’s Web site 

http://www.msha.gov, and include them 

in the rulemaking record. 

The meetings will be held on the 

following dates at the locations 

indicated: 

Date Location Contact number 

October 8, 2010 ........................................ MSHA National Office, 1100 Wilson Boulevard, 25th Floor Conference Room,

Arlington, VA 22209.

(202) 693–9440 

October 12, 2010 ...................................... Embassy Suites Sacramento-Riverwalk Promenade, 100 Capitol Mall, Sacramento, CA 95814.(916) 326–5000 

October 14, 2010 ...................................... Omni William Penn Hotel, 530 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15219 ....... (412) 281–7100 

MSHA has reviewed a number of 

guidelines for safety and health 

management programs, including: 

• The Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration’s (OSHA’s) Voluntary 

Protection Program and its Safety and 

Health Program Management 

Guidelines; 

• The American National Standards 

Institute’s (ANSI’s) and American 

Industrial Hygiene Association’s 

(AIHA’s) ANSI/AIHA’s Z10–2005, 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Management Systems; 

• The International Standards 

Organization’s (ISO’s) ISO 9001:2008 

(E), Quality management systems— 

Requirements; and 

• The British Standards Institution’s 

(BSI’s) BS OHSAS 18001:2007, 

Occupational Health and Safety 

Assessment Series, Occupational health 

and safety management systems— 

Requirements. 

The Guidelines reveal that the 

components of effective safety and 

health management programs generally 

include: 

1. Management Commitment. 

2. Worker Involvement. 

3. Hazard Identification, including 

workplace inspections for violations of 

mandatory health and safety standards. 

4. Hazard Prevention and Control. 

5. Safety and Health Training. 

6. Program Evaluation. 

Year after year, many companies 

experience low injury and illness rates 

and low violation rates. For these 

companies, preventing harm to their 

workers is more than compliance with 

safety and health requirements; it 

reflects the embodiment of a culture of 

safety—from the CEO to the worker to 

the contractor. This culture of safety 

derives from a commitment to a 

systematic, effective, comprehensive 

safety and health management program, 

implemented with the full participation 

of all workers. MSHA understands that 

many companies have developed and 

implemented effective safety and health 

management programs. At the meetings, 

you will hear about some of these 

programs. The Agency is interested in 

receiving comments on all aspects of 

safety and health management 

programs. 

MSHA will accept written comments 

and information for the record from any 

interested party, including those not 

presenting oral statements. 

Dated: September 2, 2010. 

Joseph A. Main, 

Assistant Secretary of Labor, for Mine Safety 

and Health. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22403 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–43–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0556; FRL–9198–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Carbon Monoxide (CO) 

Limited Maintenance Plan for the Twin 

Cities Area 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a request submitted by the Minnesota 

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) on 

June 16, 2010, to revise the Minnesota 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 

carbon monoxide (CO) under the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). The State has submitted 

a limited maintenance plan for CO 

showing continued attainment of the CO 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) in the Minneapolis-St. Paul 

(Twin Cities) area. The one hour CO 

NAAQS and eight hour CO NAAQS are 

35 parts per million (ppm), and 9 ppm, 

respectively. This limited maintenance 

plan satisfies section 175A of the CAA, 

and is in accordance with EPA’s 

October 29, 1999, approval of the State’s 

redesignation request and maintenance 

plan for the Twin Cities area. 

Additionally, this limited maintenance 

plan for CO satisfies the requirements 

contained in the October 6, 1995, EPA 

memorandum entitled ‘‘Limited 

Maintenance Plan Option for 

Nonclassifiable CO Nonattainment 

Areas.’’ 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before October 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0556, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2054. 

4. Mail: Jay Bortzer, Chief, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Jay Bortzer, Chief, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Final Rules section of 

this Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andy Chang, Environmental Engineer, 

Air Planning and Maintenance Section, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–0258, 

chang.andy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

54806 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 174 / Thursday, September 9, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

on this action should do so at this time. 

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. For additional information, 

see the direct final rule which is located 

in the Rules section of this Federal 

Register. 

Dated: August 26, 2010. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2010–22339 Filed 9–8–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0715; FRL–9200–3] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans—Maricopa 

County (Phoenix) PM–10 

Nonattainment Area; Serious Area Plan 

for Attainment of the 24-Hour PM–10 

Standard; Clean Air Act Section 189(d) 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

EPA is proposing to approve in part 

and disapprove in part State 

implementation plan (SIP) revisions 

submitted by the State of Arizona to 

meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements applicable to the serious 

Maricopa County (Phoenix) 

nonattainment area (Maricopa area). 

These requirements apply to the 

Maricopa area following EPA’s June 6, 

2007 finding that the area failed to meet 

its December 31, 2006 serious area 

deadline to attain the national ambient 

air quality standards (NAAQS) for 

particulate matter of ten microns or less 

(PM–10). Under CAA section 189(d), 

Arizona was required to submit a plan 

by December 31, 2007 providing for 

expeditious attainment of the PM–10 

NAAQS and for an annual emission 

reduction in PM–10 or PM–10 

precursors of not less than five percent 

per year until attainment (189(d) plan). 

EPA is proposing to disapprove 

provisions of the 189(d) plan for the 

Maricopa area because they do not meet 

applicable CAA requirements for 

emissions inventories as well as for 

attainment, five percent annual 

emission reductions, reasonable further 

progress and milestones, and 

contingency measures. EPA is also 

proposing to disapprove the 2010 motor 

vehicle emission budget in the 189(d) 

plan as not meeting the requirements of 

CAA section 176(c) and 40 CFR 

93.118(e)(4). EPA is also proposing a 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of State regulations for the 

control of PM–10 from agricultural 

sources. Finally, EPA is proposing to 

approve various provisions of State 

statutes relating to the control of PM–10 

emissions in the Maricopa area. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 12, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0715, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

on-line instructions. 

2. E-mail: nudd.gregory@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Gregory Nudd (Air2), 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 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. 

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: 

Gregory Nudd, U.S. EPA Region 9, 415– 

947–4107, nudd.gregory@epa.gov or 

http://www.epa.gov/region09/air/ 

actions. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, the terms 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ mean U.S. EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. PM–10 Air Quality Planning in the 

Maricopa Area 

II. Overview of Applicable CAA 

Requirements 

III. Evaluation of the 189(d) Plan’s 

Compliance With CAA Requirements 

IV. Summary of Proposed Actions 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. PM–10 Air Quality Planning in the 

Maricopa Area 

The NAAQS are standards for certain 

ambient air pollutants set by EPA to 

protect public health and welfare. PM– 

10 is among the ambient air pollutants 

for which EPA has established healthbased standards. PM–10 causes adverse 

health effects by penetrating deep in the 

lungs, aggravating the cardiopulmonary 

system. Children, the elderly, and 

people with asthma and heart 

conditions are the most vulnerable. 

On July 1, 1987 EPA revised the 

health-based national ambient air 

quality standards (52 FR 24672), 

replacing the standards for total 

suspended particulates with new 

standards applying only to particulate 

matter up to ten microns in diameter 

(PM–10). At that time, EPA established 

two PM–10 standards, annual standards 

and 24-hour standards. Effective 

December 18, 2006, EPA revoked the 

annual PM–10 standards but retained 

the 24-hour PM–10 standards. 71 FR 

61144 (October 17, 2006). The 24-hour 

PM–10 standards of 150 micrograms per 

cubic meter (μg/m3) are attained when 

the expected number of days per 

calendar year with a 24-hour average 

concentration above 150 μg/m3, as 

determined in accordance with 

appendix K to 40 CFR part 50, is equal 

to or less than one. 40 CFR 50.6 and 40 

CFR part 50, appendix K. 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 

Clean Air Act Amendments (CAA or the 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS