Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), 38340-38341 [2011-16500]
Download as PDF
38340
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
• 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 CAA; 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 proposed rule
pertaining to the 2002 base year
emissions inventory, the 2008 ozone
projected emission inventory, the 2008
RFP plan; RFP contingency measures,
RACM analysis, and 2008 transportation
conformity budgets for the Washington
Area 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,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 15, 2011.
W.C. Early,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011–16376 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am]
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0463; FRL–9427–3]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District (SJVUAPCD)
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the SJVUAPCD portion of
the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) and
particulate matter (PM) emissions from
commercial charbroiling. 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
August 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0463, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
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 https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, and EPA will not know
your identity or contact information
SUMMARY:
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 https://
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
https://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:
David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3019, grounds.david@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
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
III. Proposed Action
IV. 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.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Adopted
Submitted
SJVUAPCD .....................................................
4692
Commercial Charbroiling ................................
09/17/09
05/17/10
On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that
the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4692
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Jun 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Part 51, Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review.
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 126 / Thursday, June 30, 2011 / Proposed Rules
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 4692 into the SIP on June 3, 2003
(68 FR 33005).
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revision?
VOCs help produce ground-level
ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. PM
emissions also harm human health and
the environment by causing, among
other things, premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and
cardiovascular disease, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation
and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of the
CAA requires States to submit
regulations that control VOC and PM
emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4692,
Commercial Charbroiling, is designed to
limit VOC and PM emissions from
commercial charbroiling. EPA’s
technical support document (TSD) has
more information about this rule.
srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD 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 ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
moderate or above (see sections
182(b)(2) and (f), and must not relax
existing requirements (see sections
110(l) and 193). Section 172(c)(1) of the
Act also requires implementation of all
reasonably available control measures
(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable
in nonattainment areas. Because the San
Joaquin Valley (SJV) area is designated
nonattainment for the fine particulate
matter (PM2.5) National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
designated and classified as extreme
nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS
(see 40 CFR 81.305), the RACM
requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1)
applies to this area. The specific ozone
RACT requirement in CAA section
182(b)(2), however, does not apply to
Rule 4692 because there are no CTG
documents for this source category and
no major sources of ozone precursors
subject to this rule in the SJV area.
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to evaluate enforceability and
RACM requirements include the
following:
1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;
Clarification to Appendix D of
November 24, 1987 Federal Register
Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
18:02 Jun 29, 2011
Jkt 223001
availability published in the May 25,
1988 Federal Register.
2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ‘‘State Implementation Plans;
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070
(April 28, 1992).
4. Preamble, ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle
Implementation Rule for the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS,’’ 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe this rule is consistent with
the applicable CAA requirements and
guidance regarding enforceability,
RACM, and SIP revisions. 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.
III. Proposed Action
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we
are proposing to fully approve Rule
4692 based on our conclusion that it
satisfies all applicable CAA
requirements. 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.
IV. 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
proposes to approve State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by State law. For
that reason, this proposed 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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
38341
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 proposed 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011–16500 Filed 6–29–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\30JNP1.SGM
30JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 126 (Thursday, June 30, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 38340-38341]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-16500]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0463; FRL-9427-3]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the SJVUAPCD portion
of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions
concern volatile organic compound (VOC) and particulate matter (PM)
emissions from commercial charbroiling. 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 August 1, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0463, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:[sol][sol]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:[sol][sol]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:[sol][sol]www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
http:[sol][sol]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:[sol][sol]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:[sol][sol]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: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019, grounds.david@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
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
III. Proposed Action
IV. 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.
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD............................ 4692 Commercial Charbroiling 09/17/09 05/17/10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On June 8, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD
Rule 4692 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.
[[Page 38341]]
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved an earlier version of Rule 4692 into the SIP on June 3,
2003 (68 FR 33005).
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. PM emissions also harm human health and the
environment by causing, among other things, premature mortality,
aggravation of respiratory and cardiovascular disease, visibility
impairment, and damage to vegetation and ecosystems. Section 110(a) of
the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC and PM
emissions. SJVUAPCD Rule 4692, Commercial Charbroiling, is designed to
limit VOC and PM emissions from commercial charbroiling. 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 ozone nonattainment
areas classified as moderate or above (see sections 182(b)(2) and (f),
and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193).
Section 172(c)(1) of the Act also requires implementation of all
reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as
practicable in nonattainment areas. Because the San Joaquin Valley
(SJV) area is designated nonattainment for the fine particulate matter
(PM2.5) National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and
designated and classified as extreme nonattainment for the ozone NAAQS
(see 40 CFR 81.305), the RACM requirement in CAA section 172(c)(1)
applies to this area. The specific ozone RACT requirement in CAA
section 182(b)(2), however, does not apply to Rule 4692 because there
are no CTG documents for this source category and no major sources of
ozone precursors subject to this rule in the SJV area.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACM requirements include the following:
1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
4. Preamble, ``Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule for the
1997 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 72 FR 20586 (April 25, 2007).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe this rule is consistent with the applicable CAA
requirements and guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP
revisions. 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.
III. Proposed Action
Under section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing to fully
approve Rule 4692 based on our conclusion that it satisfies all
applicable CAA requirements. 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.
IV. 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 proposes to approve State law as
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this
proposed 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 proposed 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, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 9, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-16500 Filed 6-29-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P