4758 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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.’’ Under 

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not 

issue a regulation that has Federalism 

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 State and local 

governments, or EPA consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. EPA also may not issue a 

regulation that has Federalism 

implications and that preempts State 

law unless the Agency consults with 

State and local officials early in the 

process of developing the proposed 

regulation. 

This proposed rule 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, because it 

merely proposes to approve a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. Thus, the requirements of 

section 6 of the Executive Order do not 

apply to this rule. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

Executive Order 13175, entitled 

‘‘Consultation and Coordination with 

Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 

67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA 

to develop an accountable process to 

ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 

tribal officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have tribal 

implications.’’ This proposed rule does 

not have tribal implications, as specified 

in Executive Order 13175. 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this rule. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 

(62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as 

applying only to those regulatory 

actions that concern health or safety 

risks, such that the analysis required 

under section 5–501 of the Executive 

Order has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13045, because it 

proposes to approve a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This rule is not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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 of the National Technology 

Transfer and Advancement Act 

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal 

agencies to evaluate existing technical 

standards when developing a new 

regulation. To comply with NTTAA, 

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary 

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available 

and applicable when developing 

programs and policies unless doing so 

would be inconsistent with applicable 

law or otherwise impractical. 

The EPA believes that VCS are 

inapplicable to this action. Today’s 

proposed action does not require the 

public to perform activities conducive 

to the use of VCS. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Accordingly, 40 CFR part 52 is 

proposed to be 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. 

2. Section 52.245 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.245 New source review rules. 

(a) Approval of the New Source 

Review rules for the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

Rules 2020 and 2201 as approved May 

17, 2004, is limited, as it relates to 

agricultural sources, to apply the permit 

requirement only: 

(1) To agricultural sources with 

potential emissions at or above a major 

source applicability threshold; and 

(2) To agricultural sources with actual 

emissions at or above 50 percent of a 

major source applicability threshold. 

(b) The offset requirement, as it relates 

to agricultural sources, does not apply 

to new minor agricultural sources and 

minor modifications to agricultural 

sources. 

Dated: January 21, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1838 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2009–0198; FRL–9102–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Montana; Revisions to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revisions submitted by the State of 

Montana on January 16, 2009 and May 

4, 2009. The revisions are to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana. 

Revisions include minor editorial and 

grammatical changes, updates to the 

citations and references to Federal and 

State laws and regulations, and a 

clarification of agricultural activities 

exempt from control of emissions of 

airborne particulate matter. This action 

is being taken under section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before March 1, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2009–0198, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT if you are faxing 

comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 19 / Friday, January 29, 2010 / Proposed Rules 4759 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

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

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is 

located in the Rules Section of this 

Federal Register for detailed instruction 

on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kathy Dolan, Air Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129, 303–312–6142, 

dolan.kathy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this 

Federal Register, EPA is approving the 

State’s SIP revisions as a direct final 

rule without prior proposal because the 

Agency views these noncontroversial 

SIP revisions and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the preamble to 

the direct final rule. If EPA receives no 

adverse comments, EPA will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. If 

EPA receives adverse comments, EPA 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. EPA will address 

all public comments in a subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

EPA will not institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

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. See the information 

provided in the Direct Final action of 

the same title which is located in the 

Rules and Regulations Section of this 

Federal Register. 

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

Dated: January 5, 2010. 

Carol Rushin, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1746 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0122; FRL–9107–7] 

Withdrawal of Proposed Rule Revising 

the California State Implementation 

Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 20, 2008 (73 FR 

9260), EPA published a rule proposing 

to correct EPA’s May 2004 final 

approval of revisions to the San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) and to 

approve revisions to certain District 

rules. EPA’s proposed correction, and 

proposed approval of District rules 

submitted in December 2006, would 

conform the SIP to a State law generally 

known as Senate Bill 700 by explicitly 

exempting certain minor agricultural 

sources from new source review 

permitting requirements and by limiting 

the applicability of offset requirements 

for all minor agricultural sources 

consistent with criteria identified in 

state law. EPA is withdrawing this 

previously published proposed rule, 

and in this Federal Register, EPA is 

publishing a proposed rule that replaces 

the February 20, 2008 proposed rule. 

DATES: The proposed rule published on 

February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9260) is 

withdrawn as of January 29, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Laura Yannayon, Permits Office (AIR– 

3), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3534, 

yannayon.laura@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

On February 20, 2008 (73 FR 9260), 

EPA proposed to correct our May 2004 

final approval of revisions to the San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 

Control District (‘‘District’’) portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (‘‘SIP’’). EPA also proposed to 

approve revisions to two District rules 

submitted to EPA by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB) on December 

29, 2006. The subject rules included 

District Rule 2020 and District Rule 

2201 (paragraph 4.6.9 only). The 

proposed correction and proposed 

approval that were the subject of our 

February 20, 2008 proposed rule relate 

to review and permitting of new or 

modified stationary sources (‘‘NSR’’) 

specifically in connection with 

agricultural sources. EPA received 

substantive comments on the February 

2008 proposed rule, and, since 

publication of the February 2008 

proposed rule, the District has adopted 

revisions to Rules 2020 and 2201, and 

CARB has submitted the amended rules 

in their entirety to EPA as revisions to 

the California SIP. In light of the 

comments on our February 2008 

proposed rule, and the more recent 

submittals of District Rules 2020 and 

2201, we have decided to withdraw the 

rule proposed on February 20, 2008, and 

in this Federal Register, EPA is 

publishing a new proposed rule. The 

rule being proposed in this Federal 

Register replaces the following rule 

published on February 20, 2008: 

Title: Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District (Proposed rule, 73 FR 9260, 

EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0122). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

Dated: January 21, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1840 Filed 1–28–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 761 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2008–0123; FRL–9108–1] 

RIN 2050–AG42 

Polychlorinated Biphenyls: 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On November 14, 2006, 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC, 

(Veolia) submitted a rulemaking petition 

to the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) requesting to import up to 

20,000 tons of polychlorinated biphenyl 

(PCB) waste from Mexico for disposal at 

Veolia’s TSCA-approved facility in Port 

Arthur, Texas. Based on the information 

available at that time, EPA proposed to 

grant Veolia’s request in the proposed 

rule, Polychlorinated Biphenyls: 

Manufacturing (Import) Exemption for 

Veolia ES Technical Solutions, LLC. 


cprice-sewell on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS