Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61367 

definition of ‘‘total stockholders equity’’ 

to that used by the banking industry; 

and (2) delete the criterion to evaluate 

the financial strength of a bank issuing 

a letter of credit set forth in ARM 

17.24.1109(1)(f). Upon deletion of 

subsection (f), (g) through (j)(iii) will 

remain the same, but will be 

renumbered (f) through (i)(iii). 

III. Public Comment Procedures 

Under the provisions of 30 CFR 

732.17(h), we are seeking your 

comments on whether the amendment 

satisfies the applicable program 

approval criteria of 30 CFR 732.15. If we 

approve the amendment, it will become 

part of the Montana program. 

Electronic or Written Comments 

If you submit written comments, they 

should be specific, confined to issues 

pertinent to the proposed regulations, 

and explain the reason for any 

recommended change(s). We appreciate 

any and all comments, but those most 

useful and likely to influence decisions 

on the final regulations will be those 

that either involve personal experience 

or include citations to and analyses of 

SMCRA, its legislative history, its 

implementing regulations, case law, 

other pertinent Tribal or Federal laws or 

regulations, technical literature, or other 

relevant publications. 

We cannot ensure that comments 

received after the close of the comment 

period (see DATES) or sent to an address 

other than those listed above (see 

ADDRESSES) will be included in the 

docket for this rulemaking and 

considered. 

Public Availability of Comments 

Before including your address, phone 

number, e-mail address, or other 

personal identifying information in your 

comment, you should be aware that 

your entire comment—including your 

personal identifying information—may 

be made publicly available in the 

electronic docket for this rulemaking at 

http://www.regulations.gov. While you 

can ask us in your comment to withhold 

your personal identifying information 

from public review, we cannot 

guarantee that we will be able to do so. 

Public Hearing 

If you wish to speak at the public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by 

4 p.m., m.d.t. on October 20, 2010. If 

you are disabled and need reasonable 

accommodations to attend a public 

hearing, contact the person listed under 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. We 

will arrange the location and time of the 

hearing with those persons requesting 

the hearing. If no one requests an 

opportunity to speak, we will not hold 

the hearing. 

To assist the transcriber and ensure an 

accurate record, we request, if possible, 

that each person who speaks at a public 

hearing provide us with a written copy 

of his or her comments. The public 

hearing will continue on the specified 

date until everyone scheduled to speak 

has been given an opportunity to be 

heard. If you are in the audience and 

have not been scheduled to speak and 

wish to do so, you will be allowed to 

speak after those who have been 

scheduled. We will end the hearing after 

everyone scheduled to speak and others 

present in the audience who wish to 

speak, have been heard. 

Public Meeting 

If there is only limited interest in 

participating in a public hearing, we 

may hold a public meeting rather than 

a public hearing. If you wish to meet 

with us to discuss the submission, 

please request a meeting by contacting 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. All such meetings 

are open to the public and, if possible, 

we will post notices of meetings at the 

locations listed under ADDRESSES. We 

will make a written summary of each 

meeting a part of the administrative 

record. 

IV. Procedural Determinations 

Executive Order 12866—Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This rule is exempted from review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) under Executive Order 12866 

(Regulatory Planning and Review). 

Other Laws and Executive Orders 

Affecting Rulemaking 

When a State submits a program 

amendment to OSM for review, our 

regulations at 30 CFR 732.17(h) require 

us to publish a notice in the Federal 

Register indicating receipt of the 

proposed amendment, its text or a 

summary of its terms, and an 

opportunity for public comment. We 

conclude our review of the proposed 

amendment after the close of the public 

comment period and determine whether 

the amendment should be approved, 

approved in part, or not approved. At 

that time, we will also make the 

determinations and certifications 

required by the various laws and 

executive orders governing the 

rulemaking process and include them in 

the final rule. 

List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 926 

Intergovernmental relations, Surface 

mining, Underground mining. 

Dated: July 30, 2010. 

Allen D. Klein, 

Regional Director, Western Region . 

[FR Doc. 2010–24851 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–05–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0613; FRL–9210–1] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD) portion 

of the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

volatile organic compound (VOC) 

emissions from Architectural Coatings. 

We are approving a local rule that 

regulates these emission sources under 

the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 

(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 

November 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0613, 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 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
61368 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@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 revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule. 

D. Public Comment and Final 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 it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD ................................ 1113 Architectural Coatings ............................................................ 07/12/07 03/07/08 

On April 17, 2008, the submittal for 

SCAQMD Rule 1113 was found to meet 

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? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 1113 into the SIP on June 21, 1999 

(64 FR 33018). The SCAQMD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

December 6, 2002, December 5, 2003, 

July 9, 2004, and June 9, 2006, and 

CARB submitted them to us on 

December 29, 2006. The latest 

amendment occurred on July 12, 2007 

and CARB submitted it to us on March 

7, 2008. While we can act on only the 

most recently submitted version, we 

have reviewed materials provided with 

previous submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. SCAQMD Rule 1113 

incorporates more stringent VOC limits 

and expands the averaging compliance 

option. 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 section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate requirements 

consistently include the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Suggested Control Measure for 

Architectural Coatings,’’ CARB, October 

2007. 

4. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ EPA, 

January 2001. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. We note that Rule 1113’s 

definition of ‘‘volatile organic 

compound’’ excludes tertiary butyl 

acetate (TBAc) when used in industrial 

maintenance coatings. EPA has 

exempted TBAc from the definition of 

VOC for purposes of control 

requirements such as VOC emissions 

limitations and content requirements, 

but continues to require records and 

reporting of TBAc emissions 

information. See 40 CFR 51.100(s)(5); 69 

FR 69298 (Nov. 29, 2004). EPA believes 

Rule 1113’s exemption does not present 

a disapproval issue because the State of 

California performs these TBAc 

emissions and inventory reporting 

requirements. In addition, industrial 

maintenance coatings make up a very 

small percentage of the overall 

architectural coatings category. For 

these reasons, EPA believes that 

additional recordkeeping and reporting 

at the District level is not necessary. 

Rule 1113, section (c)(6) contains an 

emissions averaging provision. We 

evaluated this provision for consistency 

with EPA’s EIP Guidance. EPA believes 

that section (c)(6) fulfills the EIP’s 

‘‘environmental benefit principle’’ 

because the averaging provision was 

important in enabling SCAQMD to 

adopt VOC limits for 10 coating 

categories that are more stringent than 

the national and current District 

architectural coating regulations. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation with respect to both of these 

issues. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

The following revisions are not 

currently the basis for rule disapproval, 

but are recommended for the next time 

the rule is amended. 

1. Although tertiary butyl acetate 

(TBAc) is exempt as a VOC in industrial 

maintenance coatings, include a 

recordkeeping requirement for materials 

containing TBAc. See 40 CFR 

51.100(s)(5). 

2. Include a discount of emissions 

reductions of at least 10% into the 

averaging compliance option in section 

(c)(6), as recommended by the EIP 

guidance. 

3. Reduce the averaging period to 30 

days or less as recommended by the EIP 

guidance. 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 61369 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public 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 incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: September 23, 2010. 

Keith Takata, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24924 Filed 10–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0743; FRL–9209–9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan; Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District’s portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns emissions of oxides of 

nitrogen (NOX) from the landfill gas 

flare at the Kiefer Landfill in 

Sacramento, California. We are 

proposing to approve portions of a 

Permit to Operate that limit NOX

emissions from this facility under the 

Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA 

or the Act). We are taking comments on 

this proposal and plan to follow with a 

final action. 

DATE: Any comments must arrive by 

November 4, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0743, 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 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: 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. The State’s Submittal 

A. What did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

document? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the submitted 

document? 

B. Does the submitted document meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

C. Public Comment and Final Action 


hsrobinson on DSK69SOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS-1