Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 65283-65285 [E7-22656]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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. For additional instructions on submitting comments, go to the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, EPA/DC, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566–1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– 1742. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Raj Rao, Air Quality Policy Division (C504– 03), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711; telephone (919) 541–5593, fax number (919) 541–5509; or electronic mail at rao.raj@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS I. General Information A. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? 1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. Send or deliver information identified as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C404–02), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:18 Nov 19, 2007 Jkt 214001 Park, NC 27711, Attention Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2006–0605. 2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to: • Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number). • Follow directions—The agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number. • Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes. • Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/ or data that you used. • If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced. • Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives. • Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats. • Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. B. Where Can I Get a Copy of This Document and Other Related Information? In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this proposal will also be available on the World Wide Web (WWW). Following signature by the EPA Administrator, a copy of this notice will be posted in the regulations and standards section of our NSR home page located at http:// www.epa.gov/nsr. Dated: November 14, 2007. Robert J. Meyers, Principal Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. E7–22666 Filed 11–19–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0638; FRL–8497–5] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 65283 SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from flare operations at facilities such as oil and chemical refineries. We are proposing to approve a local rule regulating 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 December 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET NUMBER], by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 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 e-mail. 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 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 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 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 65284 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947–4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘We’’, ‘‘Us’’, and ‘‘Our’’ refer to the 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 I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 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 SJVAPCD ........................................................ 4311 Flares ............................................................. 06/15/06 12/29/06 On February 13, 2007, EPA found Rule 4311 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. SJVAPCD must meet these criteria before formal EPA review. B. Are there other versions of this rule? On February 26, 2003, EPA approved a version of Rule 4311 and incorporated it within the SIP; please see 68 FR 8835. California has not made any intervening submittals of the rule. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 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 and NOX emissions. SJVAPCD Rule 4311 is designed to decrease VOC and NOX emissions from industries such as refineries, unrecoverable gases from oil wells, vented gases from blast furnaces, unused gases from coke ovens, and gaseous wastes from chemical industries by requiring that flares be operated in a prescribed manner. The June 15, 2006 revisions to the rule set the applicability threshold for the rule at ten tons per year potential to emit VOC or NOX and provide a compliance schedule for facilities subject to the rule. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about the Rule 4311. rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS 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 section VerDate Aug<31>2005 15:18 Nov 19, 2007 Jkt 214001 182(a)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4311 must fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following: 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ USEPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ USEPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? We believe Rule 4311 is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA’s current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules. We recommend that SJVAPCD reconsider the utility of incorporating provisions such as those in South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1118 and Bay Area Air Quality Management District Rule 12–12 within Rule 4311 to aid their enforcing of the rule, developing an accurate emissions inventory for these sources, and minimizing excess emissions from flare activity to the maximum extent practicable. PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 D. Public Comment and Final Action Because EPA believes Rule 4311 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 sufficient to cause us to reverse our position, we intend to publish a final approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable 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 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 proposed action merely proposes 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 approve pre-existing 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 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 20, 2007 / Proposed Rules 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 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 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. 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, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq. Dated: November 2, 2007. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7–22656 Filed 11–19–07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2007–0621; FRL–8497–4] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: 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 particulate matter (PM) emissions from fugitive dust sources and cement manufacturing plants. We are proposing to approve local rules to regulate 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 December 20, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2007–0621, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 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 65285 should not be submitted through www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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 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 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. Jerry Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at either (415) 947–4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rules did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these rules? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? B. Do the rules 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 rules did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rules we are proposing to approve with the dates that they were adopted by the SCAQMD and submitted by the California Air Resources Board. rmajette on PROD1PC64 with PROPOSALS TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES Local agency Rule No. SCAQMD .......... SCAQMD .......... VerDate Aug<31>2005 Rule title 403 1156 15:18 Nov 19, 2007 Adopted Fugitive Dust ................................................................................................. Further Reductions of Particulate Emissions from Cement Manufacturing Facilities. Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM 20NOP1 06/03/05 11/04/05 Submitted 10/20/05 12/29/06

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 20, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 65283-65285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-22656]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0638; FRL-8497-5]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; San 
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from flare operations at 
facilities such as oil and chemical refineries. We are proposing to 
approve a local rule regulating 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 December 20, 2007.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET 
NUMBER], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 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 e-mail. 
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 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 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

[[Page 65284]]

hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 
either (415) 947-4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``We'', ``Us'', 
and ``Our'' refer to the 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

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD.............................            4311   Flares.................        06/15/06         12/29/06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 13, 2007, EPA found Rule 4311 met the completeness 
criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. SJVAPCD must meet these 
criteria before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    On February 26, 2003, EPA approved a version of Rule 4311 and 
incorporated it within the SIP; please see 68 FR 8835. California has 
not made any intervening submittals of the rule.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 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 and NOX emissions.
    SJVAPCD Rule 4311 is designed to decrease VOC and NOX 
emissions from industries such as refineries, unrecoverable gases from 
oil wells, vented gases from blast furnaces, unused gases from coke 
ovens, and gaseous wastes from chemical industries by requiring that 
flares be operated in a prescribed manner. The June 15, 2006 revisions 
to the rule set the applicability threshold for the rule at ten tons 
per year potential to emit VOC or NOX and provide a 
compliance schedule for facilities subject to the rule.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about 
the Rule 4311.

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 
section 182(a)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see 
sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment 
area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4311 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the 
following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' USEPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' USEPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe Rule 4311 is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD 
has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rules. We recommend that SJVAPCD reconsider the 
utility of incorporating provisions such as those in South Coast Air 
Quality Management District Rule 1118 and Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District Rule 12-12 within Rule 4311 to aid their enforcing 
of the rule, developing an accurate emissions inventory for these 
sources, and minimizing excess emissions from flare activity to the 
maximum extent practicable.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    Because EPA believes Rule 4311 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 sufficient to cause us to reverse our 
position, we intend to publish a final approval action that will 
incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable 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 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 
proposed action merely proposes 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 approve pre-
existing 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

[[Page 65285]]

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 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 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 approves a state rule implementing a Federal 
standard.
    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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compound.

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

    Dated: November 2, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-22656 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P