Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 66429-66431 [2012-26978]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
applicable requirements, and together
with the expansion of the geographic
area to which the VEI and other air
pollution control measures apply,
would not interfere with reasonable
further progress or attainment of any of
the national ambient air quality
standards. EPA is also proposing to
approve the revised statutory provision
[amended Arizona Revised Statutes
(ARS) section 49–541(1)], submitted by
ADEQ on May 25, 2012,18 that expands
the boundaries of Area A, i.e., the area
in which the various air pollution
control measures (including the VEI,
and cleaner burning gasoline and stage
II vapor recovery programs) in the
Phoenix area apply.
We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30
days.
V. 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, 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 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, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Oxides of
nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: October 22, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012–26977 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0614; FRL–9749–1]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
18 Final
approval of the amendment to ARS 49–
541(1) that expands the boundaries of ‘‘Area A’’ to
those promulgated by the Arizona Legislature in
2001 would supersede the previous versions of ARS
49–541(1) approved into the Arizona SIP and would
expand the applicability under the Arizona SIP of
the VEI program, the CBG program, the Stage II
vapor recovery program and any other Arizona SIP
control measure that relies on the definition of
‘‘Area A’’ in ARS 49–541(1).
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:58 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
66429
revisions concern volatile organic
compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide
(CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), oxides
of sulfur (SOX), 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 (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 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0614, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: 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 email.
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 email
directly to EPA, your email 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 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
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.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
66430
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415)
972–3019, marinaro.robert@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
amended by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Amended
Submitted
SJVUAPCD .....................................................
4354
Limiting Emissions from Glass Melting Furnaces.
05/19/11
09/27/11
On October 24, 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.
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
We approved an earlier version of
Rule 4354 into the SIP on June 24, 2011
(76 FR 53640). The SJVUAPCD adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on
May 19, 2011 and CARB submitted
them to us on September 27, 2011.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revision?
VOCs and NOX help produce groundlevel ozone and smog, which harm
human health and the environment. PM,
NOX and SOX also contribute 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
VOC, NOX, SOX and PM emissions. The
purpose of this rule revision is to
incorporate provisions for new oxy-fuel
firing technology. This technology, by
design, operates in an oxygen-rich
environment in excess of the existing
requirement, but still has inherently low
NOX emissions during start-up. The
proposed amendment prevents oxy-fuel
fired glass melting furnaces from having
to comply with an unnecessary start-up
requirement. 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), and must require Reasonably
Available Control Technology (RACT)
for each category of sources covered by
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:58 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
document as well as each major source
in nonattainment areas (see sections
182(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax
existing requirements (see sections
110(l) and 193). In addition, SIPs must
implement Reasonably Available
Control Measures (RACM) in PM 2.5
nonattainment areas (see CAA sections
189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).
The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone
and PM 2.5 nonattainment area (see 40
CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must fulfill
RACT and the overall SIP must fulfill
RACM.
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT
and RACM requirements consistently
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. ‘‘State Implementation Plans for Serious
PM–10 Nonattainment Areas, and
Attainment Date Waivers for PM–10
Nonattainment Areas Generally;
Addendum to the General Preamble for
the Implementation of Title I of the
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 59
FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).
5. ‘‘PM–10 Guideline Document,’’ EPA 452/
R–93–008, April 1993.
6. ‘‘Fugitive Dust Background Document and
Technical Information Document for
Best Available Control Measures,’’ EPA
450/2–92–004, September 1992.
7. ‘‘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.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic
Incentive Programs,’’ U.S. EPA, January
2001.
9. ‘‘Interim White Paper—Midwest RPO
Candidate Control Measure: Glass
Manufacturing’’, Lake Michigan Air
Directors Consortium, December 12,
2005.
10. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques
Document—OX Emissions from Glass
Manufacturing’’, US EPA, June 1994.
11. ‘‘Integrated Pollution Prevention and
Control (IPPC) Reference Document on
Best Available Techniques in the Glass
Manufacturing Industry’’, European
Commission, December 2001.
12. ‘‘State Implementation Plans (SIP): Policy
Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown,’’
EPA memorandum, Steven A. Herman
and Robert Perciasepe, August 11, 1999.
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/
memoranda/excem.pdf.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe this rule is consistent with
the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, RACM/RACT,
and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations to Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD describes an additional rule
revision that we recommend for the next
time the local agency modifies the rule
but is 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.
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules
WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Review
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 proposed 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:58 Nov 02, 2012
Jkt 229001
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,
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
66431
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this proposed action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Volatile organic compounds,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 17, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012–26978 Filed 11–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
E:\FR\FM\05NOP1.SGM
05NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 214 (Monday, November 5, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 66429-66431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26978]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0614; FRL-9749-1]
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
volatile organic compounds (VOC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), oxides of sulfur (SOX), 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 (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 5, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2012-0614, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. Email: 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 email.
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 email directly to EPA, your email
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 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 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.
[[Page 66430]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Marinaro, EPA Region IX, (415)
972-3019, marinaro.robert@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 amended by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD............................ 4354 Limiting Emissions from 05/19/11 09/27/11
Glass Melting Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 24, 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 June
24, 2011 (76 FR 53640). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on May 19, 2011 and CARB submitted them to us on
September 27, 2011.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
VOCs and NOX help produce ground-level ozone and smog,
which harm human health and the environment. PM, NOX and
SOX also contribute 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
VOC, NOX, SOX and PM emissions. The purpose of
this rule revision is to incorporate provisions for new oxy-fuel firing
technology. This technology, by design, operates in an oxygen-rich
environment in excess of the existing requirement, but still has
inherently low NOX emissions during start-up. The proposed
amendment prevents oxy-fuel fired glass melting furnaces from having to
comply with an unnecessary start-up requirement. 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), and 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(a)(2) and 182(f)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). In addition, SIPs must
implement Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) in PM 2.5
nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 189(a)(1) and 189(b)(1)).
The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone and PM 2.5 nonattainment area (see
40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must fulfill RACT and the overall SIP
must fulfill RACM.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability, RACT and RACM requirements consistently 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. ``State Implementation Plans for Serious PM-10 Nonattainment
Areas, and Attainment Date Waivers for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas
Generally; Addendum to the General Preamble for the Implementation
of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 59 FR 41998
(August 16, 1994).
5. ``PM-10 Guideline Document,'' EPA 452/R-93-008, April 1993.
6. ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information
Document for Best Available Control Measures,'' EPA 450/2-92-004,
September 1992.
7. ``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.
8. ``Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,'' U.S.
EPA, January 2001.
9. ``Interim White Paper--Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measure:
Glass Manufacturing'', Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium,
December 12, 2005.
10. ``Alternative Control Techniques Document--OX
Emissions from Glass Manufacturing'', US EPA, June 1994.
11. ``Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference
Document on Best Available Techniques in the Glass Manufacturing
Industry'', European Commission, December 2001.
12. ``State Implementation Plans (SIP): Policy Regarding Excess
Emissions During Malfunctions, Startup and Shutdown,'' EPA
memorandum, Steven A. Herman and Robert Perciasepe, August 11, 1999.
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/excem.pdf.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM/RACT, and SIP relaxations. The
TSD has more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
The TSD describes an additional rule revision that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule but is 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.
[[Page 66431]]
III. Statutory and Executive Order Review
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 proposed 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 action 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Volatile organic compounds, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: October 17, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-26978 Filed 11-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
