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

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


### 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—S UBMITTED 

### R ULES

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.


### 61369 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 192 / Tuesday, October 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules

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 (NO X ) 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 NO X 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 thebody 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