Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 37044-37045 [2011-15882]

Download as PDF 37044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 2. Amend § 117.587 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows: § 117.587 Apponagansett River. (a) The draw of the Padanaram Bridge, mile 1.0, shall open on signal from 1 May through 31 October, between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., daily, as follows: (1) The bridge shall open on signal, twice an hour, on the hour and half hour between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m. * * * * * Dated: June 10, 2011. Daniel A. Neptun, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District. [FR Doc. 2011–15809 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 9110–04–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0412; FRL–9324–1] Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern oxides of nitrogen SUMMARY: (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) emissions from glass melting furnaces. 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 July 25, 2011. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2011–0412, 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 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 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 at http://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: ´ Idalia Perez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3248, perez.idalia@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. 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 RULE Local agency Rule No. SJVUAPCD ................................. 4354 jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS On May 6, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4354 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? We approved an earlier version of Rule 4354 into the SIP on August 17, 2006 (72 FR 41894). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on October 16, 2008 but did not submit it to us. VerDate Mar<15>2010 18:21 Jun 23, 2011 Jkt 223001 Rule title Adopted Glass Melting Furnaces .................................................................. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision? NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, 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 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 09/16/10 Submitted 04/05/11 States to submit regulations that control NOX and PM emissions. Rule 4354 limits NOX, oxides of sulfur (SOX), PM10, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from glass melting furnaces. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule. E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? jlentini on DSK4TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS 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(b)(2) and 182(f)), must not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone and nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following: 1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992. 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 4. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,’’ US EPA, January 2001. 5. ‘‘Interim White Paper—Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measure: Glass Manufacturing’’, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, December 12, 2005. 6. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques Document— NOX Emissions from Glass Manufacturing’’, US EPA, June 1994. 7. ‘‘Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Glass Manufacturing Industry’’, European Commission, December 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. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. VerDate Mar<15>2010 16:44 Jun 23, 2011 Jkt 223001 The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently the basis for rule disapproval. 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); PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 37045 • 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: June 14, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2011–15882 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 171 [EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0049; FRL–8863–7] RIN 2070–AJ77 Synchronizing the Expiration Dates of EPA Pesticide Applicator Certificates With the Underlying State or Tribal Applicator Certificate Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: Restricted use pesticides (RUP) are those which may generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment without additional restrictions. RUPs may only be applied by or under the direct supervision of an applicator certified as competent by a certifying agency. A State, tribe, or Federal agency becomes a certifying agency by receiving approval from EPA on their certification plan. In areas not covered by a certifying agency, EPA may SUMMARY: E:\FR\FM\24JNP1.SGM 24JNP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 122 (Friday, June 24, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37044-37045]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15882]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0412; FRL-9324-1]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and particulate matter (PM) 
emissions from glass melting furnaces. 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 July 25, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0412, 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 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: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
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 at http://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: Idalia P[eacute]rez, EPA Region IX, 
(415) 972-3248, perez.idalia@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. 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 Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD................................         4354  Glass Melting Furnaces.........     09/16/10     04/05/11
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 6, 2011, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 
4354 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?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4354 into the SIP on August 
17, 2006 (72 FR 41894). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on October 16, 2008 but did not submit it to us.

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

    NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, 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 NOX and PM emissions. Rule 
4354 limits NOX, oxides of sulfur (SOX), 
PM10, volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide 
(CO) emissions from glass melting furnaces. EPA's technical support 
document (TSD) has more information about this rule.

[[Page 37045]]

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(b)(2) and 182(f)), must not interfere with any applicable 
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
(RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 110(l)) or 
modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP-approved control requirement 
in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an 
ozone and nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must 
fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the 
following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 
General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of 
Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, 
November 25, 1992.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' US 
EPA, January 2001.
    5. ``Interim White Paper--Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measure: 
Glass Manufacturing'', Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, December 
12, 2005.
    6. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document-- NOX 
Emissions from Glass Manufacturing'', US EPA, June 1994.
    7. ``Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference 
Document on Best Available Techniques in the Glass Manufacturing 
Industry'', European Commission, December 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. The TSD 
has more information on our evaluation.

C. 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 but are not currently 
the basis for rule disapproval.

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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: June 14, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-15882 Filed 6-23-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P