Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 7555 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government. We have 

analyzed this proposed rule under that 

Order and determined that it does not 

have implications for federalism. 

6. Protest Activities 

The Coast Guard respects the First 

Amendment rights of protesters. 

Protesters are asked to contact the 

person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

coordinate protest activities so that your 

message can be received without 

jeopardizing the safety or security of 

people, places or vessels. 

7. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531–1538) requires 

Federal agencies to assess the effects of 

their discretionary regulatory actions. In 

particular, the Act addresses actions 

that may result in the expenditure by a 

State, local, or tribal government, in the 

aggregate, or by the private sector of 

$100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or 

more in any one year. Though this 

proposed rule would not result in such 

an expenditure, we do discuss the 

effects of this proposed rule elsewhere 

in this preamble. 

8. Taking of Private Property 

This proposed rule would not cause a 

taking of private property or otherwise 

have taking implications under 

Executive Order 12630, Governmental 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights. 

9. Civil Justice Reform 

This proposed rule meets applicable 

standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform, to minimize litigation, 

eliminate ambiguity, and reduce 

burden. 

10. Protection of Children From 

Environmental Health Risks 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Executive Order 13045, 

Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks. This proposed rule is not an 

economically significant rule and would 

not create an environmental risk to 

health or risk to safety that might 

disproportionately affect children. 

11. Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule does not have 

tribal implications under Executive 

Order 13175, Consultation and 

Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, because it would not have 

a substantial direct effect on one or 

more Indian tribes, 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. 

12. Energy Effects 

This proposed rule is not a 

‘‘significant energy action’’ under 

Executive Order 13211, Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use. 

13. Technical Standards 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

14. Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Department of Homeland 

Security Management Directive 023–01 

and Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that this action is one of a category of 

actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on 

the human environment. This proposed 

rule involves the establishment of a 

temporary security zone near Chambers 

Bay Golf Course in South Puget Sound, 

University Place, WA. This proposed 

rule is categorically excluded from 

further review under paragraph 34(g) of 

Figure 2–1 of the Commandant 

Instruction. A preliminary 

environmental analysis checklist 

supporting this determination and a 

Categorical Exclusion Determination are 

available in the docket where indicated 

under ADDRESSES. We seek any 

comments or information that may lead 

to the discovery of a significant 

environmental impact from this 

proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapters 701, 3306, 3703; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 

33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; 

Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department 

of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

■ 2. Add temporary § 165.T13–281 to 

read as follows: 

§ 165.T13.281 Security Zone; U.S. Open 

Golf Championship, South Puget Sound; 

University Place, WA. 

(a) Location. This temporary security 

zone is established in all waters 

encompassed by the following points: 

47°12′50′′ N, 122°35′25′′ W; thence 

southerly to 47°11′14′′ N, 122°35′50′′ W; 

thence easterly to the shoreline at 

47°11′14′′ N, 122°35′03′′ W; thence 

northerly along the shoreline to 

47°12′49′′ N, 122°34′39′′ W; thence 

westerly back to the point of origin. 

(b) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in 33 CFR part 

165, subpart C, no person or vessel may 

enter or remain in the security zone 

created by this section without the 

permission of the Captain of the Port or 

his Designated Representative. 

Designated Representatives are Coast 

Guard Personnel authorized by the 

Captain of the Port to grant persons or 

vessels permission to enter or remain in 

the security zone created by this section. 

See 33 CFR part 165, subpart C, for 

additional information and 

requirements. Vessels wishing to enter 

the zone must request permission for 

entry by contacting the Joint Harbor 

Operations Center at (206) 217–6001, or 

the on-scene patrol craft via VHF–FM 

Ch 13. If permission for entry is granted 

vessels must proceed at a minimum 

speed for safe navigation. 

(c) Enforcement Period. This rule will 

be enforced from 6 a.m. on June 14, 

2015, until 11 p.m. on June 22, 2015, 

unless canceled sooner by the Captain 

of the Port. 

Dated: January 27, 2015. 

M.W. Raymond, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, Puget Sound. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02711 Filed 2–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0037; FRL–9922–87– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Butte County Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7556 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the Butte County Air 

Quality Management District’s 

(BCAQMD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compounds (VOCs), oxides of nitrogen 

(NOX), and particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from open burning. We are 

proposing action on a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). We 

are taking comments on this proposal 

and plan to follow with a final action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

March 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2015–0037, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: 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 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 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

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 email 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at 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 at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), 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: 

Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4118, Kay.Rynda@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the deficiencies in the rule? 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

E. Public Comment and Proposed Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that is was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

BCAQMD .................................... 300 Open Burning ................................................................................. 02/24/11 09/21/12 

On October 11, 2012, EPA determined 

that the submittal for BCAQMD Rule 

300 met the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

There is no previous version of Rule 

300 in the California SIP. BCAQMD 

previously adopted Rules 301–325 for 

open burning which were approved by 

the EPA for inclusion into the California 

SIP in 1987. BCAQMD later 

consolidated these rules locally into 

Rule 300. On February 24, 2011, 

BCAQMD updated the open burning 

requirements in Rule 300 and CARB 

submitted the rule to us on October 21, 

2012. This rule would supersede the 

BCAQMD rules currently in the 

California SIP as listed below. 

TABLE 2—RULES TO BE SUPERSEDED

Rule Title SIP approval date FR Citation 

301 ...................... Prohibitions on Open Burning ................................................................. February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

302 ...................... Exemptions to Rule 301 .......................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

303 ...................... Burn Permits ............................................................................................ February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

304 ...................... Exemptions to Rule 303 .......................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

306 ...................... Information Furnished by Permit Applicant ............................................. February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

307 ...................... Ignition Hours .......................................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

308 ...................... Notice of Intent to Ignite .......................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

309 ...................... Freedom from Debris and Moisture ........................................................ February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

310 ...................... Arrangement of Agricultural and Wood Waste ....................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

311 ...................... Drying Period ........................................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

312 ...................... Wind Direction ......................................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

313 ...................... Ignition Devices ....................................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

314 ...................... Burning of Vines or Bushes Treated with Herbicides ............................. February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 7557 

1On December 3, 2012 (77 FR 71551), EPA 

determined that Chico nonattainment area had 

attained the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS by the 

applicable attainment date, and that it continued to 

attain the 1997 standard based upon complete 

quality-assured data for 2009–2011. 

TABLE 2—RULES TO BE SUPERSEDED—Continued 

Rule Title SIP approval date FR Citation 

315 ...................... Rice Straw Burning .................................................................................. February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

316 ...................... Field Crop Ignition ................................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

317 ...................... Field Crops Harvested Prior to September 10 ........................................ February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

318 ...................... Restriction of Burning During Poor Air Quality Conditions ..................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

320 ...................... Certificate from Department of Fish and Game ...................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

322 ...................... Special Permit ......................................................................................... February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

323 ...................... Range Improvement Burning .................................................................. February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

324 ...................... Burning at Disposal Sites ........................................................................ February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

325 ...................... Exemption to Rule 324 ............................................................................ February 3, 1987 ............................ 52 FR 3226. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

Open burning emits PM, including 

particulate matter of ten microns or less 

(PM10) and particulate matter of 2.5 

microns or less (PM2.5), directly, as well 

as VOCs and NOX, which are precursors 

to ozone and PM2.5. VOCs help produce 

ground-level ozone and smog, which 

harm human health and the 

environment. NOX helps produce 

ground-level ozone, smog and 

particulate matter, which harm human 

health and the environment. PM 

contributes to effects that are harmful to 

human health and the environment, 

including premature mortality, 

aggravation of respiratory and 

cardiovascular disease, decreased lung 

function, visibility impairment, and 

damage to vegetation and ecosystems. 

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 

States to submit regulations that control 

VOC, NOX, and PM emissions. Rule 300 

is designed to minimize the impacts of 

smoke and other air pollutants 

generated by open burning. EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) has 

more information about this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), 

must not interfere with applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or other 

CAA requirements (see CAA section 

110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP 

control requirements in nonattainment 

areas without ensuring equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions (see CAA 

section 193). 

In PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

classified as moderate, the SIP must 

include Reasonably Available Control 

Measures (RACM) (see CAA section 

189(a)(1)). BCAQMD regulates the Chico 

nonattainment area in Butte County, 

which is classified as moderate for the 

2006 24-hour PM2.5 National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) (40 CFR 

81.305). On September 10, 2013 (78 FR 

55225), EPA issued a determination that 

the area had attained the 2006 24-hour 

PM2.5 standard based on complete, 

quality-assured, and certified ambient 

air monitoring data for the 2010–2012 

monitoring period. Under EPA’s Clean 

Data Policy and the regulations that 

embody it, 40 CFR 51.1004(c) (for 

PM2.5), an EPA determination that an 

area is attaining the relevant standard 

suspends the area’s obligations to 

submit RACM for as long as the area 

continues to attain. Therefore, BCAQMD 

is not currently required to implement 

RACM for PM2.5. If the Chico 

nonattainment area is redesignated to 

attainment, RACM requirements for 

PM2.5 will no longer apply. 

BCAQMD also regulates the Chico 

ozone nonattainment area, which is 

classified as marginal under the 1997 

and 2008 NAAQS.1 CAA sections 

172(c)(1) and 182 require 

implementation of RACM for moderate 

and above ozone areas, but not for 

marginal areas. Therefore, BCAQMD is 

not subject to RACM requirements with 

respect to ozone. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, 

revision/relaxation and rule stringency 

requirements for the applicable criteria 

pollutants include the following: 

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 

(April 28, 1992). 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is largely 

consistent with the relevant policy and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

stringency, and SIP relaxations. Rule 

provisions which do not meet the 

evaluation criteria are summarized 

below and discussed further in the TSD. 

C. What are the deficiencies in the rule? 

BCAQMD Rule 300 contains two 

provisions which do not meet the 

evaluation criteria concerning 

enforceability and preclude full SIP 

approval. The provisions allow the Air 

Pollution Control Officer (APCO) to 

independently interpret the SIP without 

explicit and replicable procedures 

within the rule to tightly define how the 

discretion is exercised to assure 

equivalent emission reductions and 

without explicit approval of such 

discretion provisions by the EPA (Little 

Blue Book, page 17; see also 52 FR 

45044, 45109 (November 24, 1987)). 

1. Sections 5.53 and 6.5 prohibit 

burning of rubbish or garbage except 

under variance by the hearing board as 

follows: 

‘‘5.53 Variance: Temporary exemption 

from DISTRICT rules or regulations 

granted to sources by the DISTRICT 

Hearing Board. 

6.5 It is unlawful to burn rubbish or 

garbage at dumps, landfills, or refuse 

disposal areas, or at any solid waste 

dump, whether public or private, or to 

burn garbage anywhere else in the 

County of Butte, except under 

variance.’’ 

2. Sections 8.24 allows the APCO to 

waive drying time requirements: 

‘‘8.2.4 The drying time requirements 

stated in Sections 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 may be 

waived by the APCO for good cause at 

the discretion of the APCO. The 

adequacy of cause to waive the drying 

time requirements shall be decided on 

a case-by-case basis by the APCO.’’ 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
7558 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

D. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rule. 

E. Public Comment and Proposed 

Action 

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) 

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing 

a limited approval of the submitted rule 

to improve the SIP. If finalized, this 

action would incorporate the submitted 

rule into the SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. This 

approval is limited because EPA is 

simultaneously proposing a limited 

disapproval of the rule under section 

110(k)(3). If this disapproval is 

finalized, sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the disapproval. These 

sanctions would be imposed according 

to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval 

would also trigger the 2-year clock for 

the federal implementation plan (FIP) 

requirement under section 110(c). 

Note that the submitted rule has been 

adopted by the BCAQMD, and EPA’s 

final limited disapproval would not 

prevent the local agency from enforcing 

it. The limited disapproval also would 

not prevent any portion of the rule from 

being incorporated by reference into the 

federally enforceable SIP as discussed in 

a July 9, 1992 EPA memo titled 

‘‘Processing of State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) Submittals.’’ 

We will accept comments from the 

public on the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory 

action from Executive Order 12866, 

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review.’’ 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This action does not impose an 

information collection burden under the 

provisions of the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is 

defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements 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 not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. 

This rule will not have a significant 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities because SIP approvals or 

disapprovals under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

do not create any new requirements but 

simply approve or disapprove 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because EPA’s 

proposed limited approval/limited 

disapproval does not create any new 

requirements, I certify that this action 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. 

Moreover, due to the nature of the 

Federal-State relationship under the 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its 

actions concerning SIPs on such 

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. 

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 

U.S.C. 7410(a) (2). 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed 

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must 

prepare a budgetary impact statement to 

accompany any proposed or final rule 

that includes a Federal mandate that 

may result in estimated costs to State, 

local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate; or to the private sector, of 

$100 million or more. Under section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 

alternative that achieves the objectives 

of the rule and is consistent with 

statutory requirements. Section 203 

requires EPA to establish a plan for 

informing and advising any small 

governments that may be significantly 

or uniquely impacted by the rule. 

EPA has determined that the limited 

approval/limited disapproval action 

proposed does not include a Federal 

mandate that may result in estimated 

costs of $100 million or more to either 

State, local, or tribal governments in the 

aggregate, or to the private sector. This 

Federal action proposes to approve and 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999) revokes and replaces Executive 

Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 

(Enhancing the Intergovernmental 

Partnership). Executive Order 13132 

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 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 or 

disapprove 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 28 / Wednesday, February 11, 2015 / Proposed Rules 7559 

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. 

EPA specifically solicits additional 

comment on this proposed rule from 

tribal officials. 

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 

action does not require the public to 

perform activities conducive to the use 

of VCS. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 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 lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: January 23, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02700 Filed 2–10–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 180 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2015–0032; FRL–9921–94] 

Receipt of Several Pesticide Petitions 

Filed for Residues of Pesticide 

Chemicals in or on Various 

Commodities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of filing of petitions and 

request for comment. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

Agency’s receipt of several initial filings 

of pesticide petitions requesting the 

establishment or modification of 

regulations for residues of pesticide 

chemicals in or on various commodities. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number and the pesticide petition 

number (PP) of interest as shown in the 

body of this document, by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the online 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. 

• Mail: OPP Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency Docket Center (EPA/ 

DC), (28221T), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. 

NW., Washington, DC 20460–0001. 

• Hand Delivery: To make special 

arrangements for hand delivery or 

delivery of boxed information, please 

follow the instructions at http://

www.epa.gov/dockets/contacts.html. 

Additional instructions on 

commenting or visiting the docket, 

along with more information about 

dockets generally, is available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Susan Lewis, Registration Division (RD) 

(7505P), main telephone number: (703) 

305–7090; email address: 

RDFRNotices@epa.gov. The mailing 

address for each contact person is: 

Office of Pesticide Programs, 

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 

Pennsylvania Ave. NW., Washington, 

DC 20460–0001. As part of the mailing 

address, include the contact person’s 

name, division, and mail code. The 

division to contact is listed at the end 

of each pesticide petition summary. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this action apply to me? 

You may be potentially affected by 

this action if you are an agricultural 

producer, food manufacturer, or 

pesticide manufacturer. The following 

list of North American Industrial 

Classification System (NAICS) codes is 

not intended to be exhaustive, but rather 

provides a guide to help readers 

determine whether this document 

applies to them. Potentially affected 

entities may include: 

• Crop production (NAICS code 111). 

• Animal production (NAICS code 

112). 

• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 

311). 

• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS 

code 32532). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT for the division listed at the 

end of the pesticide petition summary of 

interest. 

B. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this 

information to EPA through 

regulations.gov or email. 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 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS