45186 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What action is EPA taking today and 

what is the basis for this action? 

Section 110 of the Act is the authority 

under which Congress has directed EPA 

to act on SIPs and SIP revisions. Section 

110(a) establishes the applicable 

procedures for SIP development and 

submission. The trigger for these 

activities is the promulgation of 

NAAQS; and the focus of the State’s 

efforts is to develop ‘‘a plan which 

provides for implementation, 

maintenance, and enforcement’’ of the 

NAAQS. Section 110(a)(1). EPA must 

then determine whether the submission 

contains the air quality-related 

components prescribed in section 

110(a)(2). 

Other than for lead, which is both a 

HAP and criteria pollutant, Section 110 

does not provide parameters to 

determine the approvability of a HAP 

provision. Instead, in the 1990 

Amendments to the Act, Congress 

envisioned that HAPs (including the 

then-listed EGBE) would be regulated 

under section 112. State programs for 

hazardous pollutants, including 

delegations, are governed by section 

112(l) of the Act. They should not be 

included in the SIP under section 110. 

EPA is, therefore, proposing to correct 

its June 12, 2006, approval of Indiana’s 

requested revision to delete EGBE from 

the definition of ‘‘hazardous air 

pollutant’’ in 326 IAC 1–2–33.5. 

Section 110(k)(6) of the Act provides 

that whenever EPA determines that its 

action approving, disapproving, or 

promulgating any plan or plan revision 

(or part thereof), * * * was in error, 

EPA may revise such action as 

appropriate without requiring any 

further submission from the State. 

Therefore, under section 110(k)(6), EPA 

is rescinding its exclusion of EGBE from 

Indiana’s definition of HAP, as well as 

Indiana’s definition of HAP in 326 IAC 

1–2–33.5, from Indiana’s ozone SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed 

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ and therefore is not subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget. For this reason, this proposed 

action is also not subject to Executive 

Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 

FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 

merely proposes to correct an error and 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 

correct an error and approve preexisting 

requirements under state law and does 

not impose any additional enforceable 

duty beyond that required by state law, 

it 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). 

This proposed rule also does not have 

tribal implications because it will 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, 

as specified by Executive Order 13175 

(65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This 

proposed action also does not have 

Federalism implications because it does 

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 (64 FR 43255, 

August 10, 1999). This action merely 

proposes to correct an error and 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. This proposed rule also 

is not subject to Executive Order 13045 

‘‘Protection of Children from 

Environmental Health Risks and Safety 

Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), 

because it is not economically 

significant. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the 

absence of a prior existing requirement 

for the State to use voluntary consensus 

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 

to disapprove a SIP submission for 

failure to use VCS. It would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, 

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission 

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of 

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 

requirements of section 12(d) of the 

National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272 note) do not apply. This proposed 

rule does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Hazardous air pollutants, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: July 22, 2008. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. E8–17809 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2006–0386; FRL–8700–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; El Paso 

County Carbon Monoxide 

Redesignation to Attainment, and 

Approval of Maintenance Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: On February 13, 2008, the 

Texas Commission on Environmental 

Quality (TCEQ) submitted a State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision to 

request redesignation of the El Paso 

carbon monoxide (CO) nonattainment 

area to attainment for the CO National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS). This submittal also included 

a CO maintenance plan for the El Paso 

area and associated Motor Vehicle 

Emission Budgets (MVEBs). The 

maintenance plan was developed to 

ensure continued attainment of the CO 

NAAQS for a period of 10 years from 

the effective date of EPA approval of 

redesignation to attainment. In this 

action, EPA is proposing to approve the 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 150 / Monday, August 4, 2008 / Proposed Rules 45187 

El Paso CO redesignation request and 

the maintenance plan with its 

associated MVEBs as satisfying the 

requirements of the Federal Clean Air 

Act (CAA) as amended in 1990. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received by September 3, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning 

Section (6PD–L), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

Comments may also be submitted 

electronically or through hand delivery/ 

courier by following the detailed 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section of 

the direct final rule located in the rules 

section of this Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jeffrey Riley, Air Planning Section 

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone 214–665–8542; fax number 

214–665–7263; e-mail address 

riley.jeffrey@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Why is EPA issuing this proposed 

rule? 

This document proposes to take 

action on SIP revisions pertaining to the 

El Paso area. We have published a direct 

final rule approving the State’s SIP 

revisions in the ‘‘Rules and 

Regulations’’ section of this Federal 

Register because we view this as a 

noncontroversial action and anticipate 

no adverse comment. We have 

explained our reasons for this action in 

the preamble to the direct final rule. 

If we receive no relevant adverse 

comment, we will not take further 

action on this proposed rule. If we 

receive relevant adverse comment, we 

will withdraw the direct final rule and 

it will not take effect. We would address 

all public comments in any subsequent 

final rule based on this proposed rule. 

We do not intend to institute a second 

comment period on this action. Any 

parties interested in commenting must 

do so at this time. For further 

information, please see the information 

provided in the ADDRESSES section of 

this document. 

Dated: July 18, 2008. 

Richard E. Greene, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. E8–17701 Filed 8–1–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 258 

[EPA–R09–RCRA–2008–0354; FRL–8700–3] 

Tentative Determination to Approve 

Research, Development, and 

Demonstration Request for the Salt 

River Landfill, and Proposed Finding of 

No Adverse Effect Under the National 

Historic Preservation Act; Opportunity 

for Public Comment 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX is making a tentative 

determination to approve a research, 

development, and demonstration 

(RD&D) project at the Salt River 

Landfill, a commercial municipal solid 

waste landfill (MSWLF) owned and 

operated by the Salt River PimaMaricopa County Indian Community 

(SRPMIC) on the SRPMIC reservation in 

Arizona. EPA is seeking public 

comment on EPA’s tentative 

determination to approve SRPMIC’s 

RD&D project. Pursuant to the National 

Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), EPA 

is also seeking public comment on 

EPA’s proposed Area of Potential Effects 

(APE), the proposed finding that the 

Arizona Canal is the sole historic 

property within the APE, and the 

proposed finding that the RD&D project 

will not adversely affect the Arizona 

Canal. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 30, 2008. If 

sufficient public interest is expressed, 

EPA will hold a public hearing at 11 

a.m. on September 30, 2008. If by 

September 18, 2008, EPA does not 

receive information indicating sufficient 

public interest for a public hearing, EPA 

may cancel the public hearing with no 

further notice. If you are interested in 

attending the public hearing, contact 

Karen Ueno at (415) 972–3317 to verify 

that a hearing will be held. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–

RCRA–2008–0354 by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: ueno.karen@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (415) 947–3530 

• Mail: Karen Ueno, Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, Mailcode: 

WST–7, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

• Hand Delivery: Environmental 

Protection Agency Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket Facility’s normal 

hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R09–RCRA–2008–

0354. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Docket Facility located at the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 

Francisco, California. A complete public 

portion of the administrative record for 

this rulemaking is also available for 

review at the Docket Facility upon 

request. The Docket Facility is open 

from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through 


ebenthall on PRODPC60 with PROPOSALS