Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 5709-5710 [2012-2599]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0733; FRL–9501–5]
(VOC) emissions from polyester resin
operations. We are approving a local
rule that regulates these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Effective Date: This rule is
effective on March 7, 2012.
DATES:
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
EPA has established docket
number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0733 for
this action. Generally, documents in the
docket for this action are available
electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov or 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, multivolume reports), and some may not be
available in either location (e.g.,
ADDRESSES:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
EPA is finalizing approval of
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District
(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions were proposed in the Federal
Register on September 12, 2011 and
concern volatile organic compound
SUMMARY:
5709
confidential business information
(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:
Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
974–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On September 12, 2011 (76 FR 56132),
EPA proposed to approve the following
rule into the California SIP.
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Amended
Submitted
SJVUAPCD ......................................
4684
Polyester Resin Operations ..........................................
08/18/11
08/26/11
We proposed to approve this rule
because we determined that it complied
with the relevant CAA requirements.
Our proposed action contains more
information on the rule and our
evaluation.
Our proposed approval of Rule 4684
responded to a July 22, 2011 request
from the State to parallel process a
version of the Rule proposed for local
adoption on August 18, 2011. On
August 26, 2011, CARB submitted to
EPA the version of Rule 4684 that was
adopted locally on August 18, 2011. We
have reviewed this version, and it is
unchanged from the version we
proposed for approval on September 12,
2011.
II. Public Comments and EPA
Responses
EPA’s proposed action provided a 30day public comment period. During this
period, we received no comments.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that
change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the
relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the
Act, EPA is fully approving this rule
into the California 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:40 Feb 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
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);
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
• 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. EPA will submit a
report containing this action and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,
E:\FR\FM\06FER1.SGM
06FER1
5710
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations
the U.S. House of Representatives, and
the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the rule in
the Federal Register. A major rule
cannot take effect until 60 days after it
is published in the Federal Register.
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by April 6, 2012.
Filing a petition for reconsideration by
the Administrator of this final rule does
not affect the finality of this action for
the purposes of judicial review nor does
it extend the time within which a
petition for judicial review may be filed,
and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may
not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements (see section
307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: November 18, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(405) to read as
follows:
■
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(405) New and amended regulations
for the following APCDs were submitted
on August 26, 2011 by the Governor’s
designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 4684, ‘‘Polyester Resin
Operations,’’ amended on August 18,
2011.
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. 2012–2599 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:13 Feb 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 97
Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202)
343–9252, email at
stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9626–2]
I. Background
Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa,
Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and
Wisconsin and Determination for
Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport
of Ozone: Effect of Stay of Transport
Rule
On July 6, 2011, the EPA issued a
final rule promulgating the Transport
Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). The
Transport Rule limits the interstate
transport of emissions of nitrogen
oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2)
that contribute to harmful levels of fine
particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone in
downwind states. The rule identified
emissions within 27 states in the eastern
United States that significantly affect
the ability of downwind states to attain
and maintain compliance with the 1997
and 2006 fine particulate matter
NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS.
EPA established trading programs to
reduce these emissions through Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) that
regulate electric generating units (EGUs)
in the 27 states.
As explained in the preambles to the
final Transport Rule (76 FR 48208) and
the supplemental notice of final
rulemaking (SNFR) (76 FR 80761), EPA
updated and improved its modeling
platforms and inputs in response to
public comments received on the
proposed Transport Rule and
subsequent Notices of Data Availability
(NODAs), and performed other updates.
Therefore, some of the results of the
analysis performed for the final
Transport Rule differed from the results
of the analysis conducted for the
Transport Rule proposal. Under the
proposed Transport Rule, EPA’s
analysis did not identify Wisconsin,
Iowa, and Missouri as states that
significantly contribute to
nonattainment and/or interfere with
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in
another state with respect to the 1997
ozone NAAQS. Under the final
Transport Rule’s analysis, however, the
results indicated that emissions from
these states do interfere with
maintenance of the ozone NAAQS of
another state. The results also showed
that emissions from Missouri
significantly contribute to
nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in
another state. The analysis for the final
rule also identified two ozone
maintenance receptors, located in
Allegan County, Michigan and Harford
County, Maryland, which were not
identified by modeling conducted for
the proposed rule. The analysis
indicated that five states—Iowa, Kansas,
Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin—
interfered with maintenance problems
at these receptors. EPA did not include
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of Intent.
AGENCY:
A December 30, 2011 order of
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District
of Columbia Circuit stayed the
Transport Rule, also known as the Cross
State Air Pollution Rule.1 This
document sets out EPA’s interpretation
of the effect of the Court’s stay on the
federal implementation plans finalized
by EPA on December 15, 2011 (SNFR),
which included the conclusion that
Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri,
Oklahoma, and Wisconsin significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere
with maintenance of the 1997 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS) in other states and required
sources in five states to comply with the
Transport Rule’s ozone season NOX
trading program.2
DATES: The effective date of this notice
of intent is February 6, 2012.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets
Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building,
1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW.,
SUMMARY:
1 Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce
Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and
Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for
22 States: Final Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011).
Available on the Web at https://www.epa.gov/
crossstaterule.
2 EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas with
respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the SNFR.
EPA had previously approved a section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission from the state of
Kansas for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS
on March 9, 2007 (75 FR 10608), and that SIP
submission did not rely on the unlawful CAIR
trading programs or on the conclusion that
compliance with CAIR was sufficient to satisfy its
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the
1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore did
not have the obligation to promulgate a FIP for
Kansas under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, and
instead proposed a SIP Call for Kansas under
section 110(k)(5) of the Act (76 FR 763, January 6,
2011). EPA proposed to find Kansas’ SIP
substantially inadequate to meet the requirements
of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone
NAAQS based on the proposed conclusion that
emissions from Kansas are significantly
contributing to nonattainment or interfering with
maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another
state. EPA has not taken final action yet on the
proposed SIP Call.
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\06FER1.SGM
06FER1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 24 (Monday, February 6, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5709-5710]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-2599]
[[Page 5709]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0733; FRL-9501-5]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions were
proposed in the Federal Register on September 12, 2011 and concern
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin
operations. We are approving a local rule that regulates these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on March 7, 2012.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0733 for
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are
available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov or 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, multi-volume
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g.,
confidential business information (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: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
974-4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Proposed Action
On September 12, 2011 (76 FR 56132), EPA proposed to approve the
following rule into the California SIP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD............................ 4684 Polyester Resin 08/18/11 08/26/11
Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.
Our proposed approval of Rule 4684 responded to a July 22, 2011
request from the State to parallel process a version of the Rule
proposed for local adoption on August 18, 2011. On August 26, 2011,
CARB submitted to EPA the version of Rule 4684 that was adopted locally
on August 18, 2011. We have reviewed this version, and it is unchanged
from the version we proposed for approval on September 12, 2011.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received no comments.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment that the
submitted rule complies with the relevant CAA requirements. Therefore,
as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving
this rule into the California 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 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.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate,
[[Page 5710]]
the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 6, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: November 18, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(405) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(405) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were
submitted on August 26, 2011 by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 4684, ``Polyester Resin Operations,'' amended on August
18, 2011.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2012-2599 Filed 2-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P