55842 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

12, 2011. The USPTO is now extending 

the period for submission of public 

comments until September 23, 2011. 

Dated: September 6, 2011. 

David J. Kappos, 

Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual 

Property and Director of the United States 

Patent and Trademark Office. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23129 Filed 9–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–16–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0723; FRL–9462–3] 

Partial Approval and Partial 

Disapproval of Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; California; San 

Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available 

Control Technology for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially 

approve and partially disapprove a 

revision to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD or SJV) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). Specifically, we propose to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove SJVUAPCD’s ‘‘Reasonably 

Available Control Technology (RACT) 

Demonstration for Ozone State 

Implementation Plan (SIP)’’ (RACT SIP) 

for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) 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 

October 11, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0723, 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 email 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: 

Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What document did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this 

document? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

RACT SIP? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP? 

B. Does the RACT SIP meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

D. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What document did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the document proposed 

for partial approval and partial 

disapproval with the date that it was 

adopted and submitted by the SJV. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENT

Local agency Document Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ...................................... Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for 

Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP).

04/16/2009 06/18/2009 

On December 11, 2009, EPA 

determined that the submittal for SJV’s 

RACT SIP 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 

document? 

On October 8, 2004, SJV adopted its 

‘‘Extreme Ozone Attainment 

Demonstration Plan’’ for the 1-hour 

ozone standard (2004 SIP). The plan 

was amended on October 20, 2005 and 

included 1-hour ozone RACT 

provisions. On September 5, 2008, the 

State withdrew the RACT provisions 

from the 2004 SIP and indicated SJV 

would satisfy its RACT obligation for 

the 1-hour ozone standard with a 

revised 8-hour ozone RACT SIP. 

Subsequent to the State’s withdrawal of 

the RACT element, EPA published a 

Finding of Failure to Submit a required 

SIP revision for the 1-hour ozone 

standard (74 FR 3442, January 21, 2009). 

In this action, we indicated that first, 

offset sanctions as identified in CAA 

section 179(b) would apply, and next, 

highway funding sanctions would apply 

if the State failed to submit a SIP 

revision which included all required 

RACT rules and the supporting RACT 

demonstrations to meet CAA sections 

172(c)(1), 182(b)(2), and 182(f) within 

the time frames specified in the CAA. 

See 74 FR at 3443. On June 18, 2009, the 

California Air Resources Board (CARB) 

submitted a revised RACT SIP 

demonstration for the 8-hour ozone 

standard. EPA’s December 11, 2009 

completeness determination turned off 

the sanctions clocks. 

There is no previous version of this 

document in the SJV portion of the 

California SIP, although the SJV adopted 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55843 

1The SJV also revised the RACT SIP on December 

28, 2007 to lower the major source threshold to 10 

tons per year (tpy) and to address four new Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents. This 

revision was not submitted to EPA. See SJV 2009 

RACT SIP dated April 16, 2009 pg. 1–3. 

a prior version of the RACT SIP on 

August 17, 2006, and submitted it to us 

on January 31, 2007.1 We are proposing 

to act on only the most recently 

submitted version, but we have also 

reviewed materials provided with the 

2007 submittal. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

RACT SIP? 

Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) 

and Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) help 

produce ground-level ozone, or smog, 

which harms human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit enforceable 

regulations that control VOC and NOX

emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) 

require that SIPs for ozone 

nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above include 

implementation of RACT for any source 

covered by a Control Techniques 

Guidelines (CTG) document and for any 

major source of VOC or NOX. The SJV 

is subject to these requirements because 

it is designated and classified as an 

extreme ozone nonattainment area for 

the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 

81.305). Therefore, SJVUAPCD must 

adopt RACT level controls for all 

sources covered by a CTG document 

and for all major non-CTG sources of 

VOC or NOX. 

Section IV.G. of the preamble to EPA’s 

final rule to implement the 8-hour 

ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612, November 

29, 2005) discusses RACT SIP 

requirements. It states in part that where 

a RACT SIP is required, States 

implementing the 8-hour ozone 

standard must assure that RACT is met, 

either through a certification that 

previously required RACT controls 

represent RACT for 8-hour 

implementation purposes or through a 

new RACT determination. Since RACT 

may change over time as new 

technology becomes available or the 

cost of existing technology decreases, 

States must use the latest information 

available to demonstrate that their 

ozone SIPs continue to require RACT 

based on the current availability of 

technically and economically feasible 

controls. 70 FR at 71655. The submitted 

RACT SIP provides SJV’s analyses of the 

District’s compliance with the section 

182 RACT requirements for both the 1- 

hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) has 

more information about SJV’s analyses. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT 

SIP? 

The rules and guidance documents 

that we used to evaluate SJV’s RACT SIP 

include the following: 

1. ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the 

8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard—Phase 2’’ (70 FR 

71612; November 29, 2005). 

2. ‘‘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). 

3. Enforceability—Section 110(a) of 

the CAA requires enforceable emission 

limitations and other control measures. 

Several EPA guidance documents are 

used to evaluate rule enforceability, 

including Issues Relating to VOC 

Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations: Clarification to Appendix D 

of November 24, 1987 Federal Register, 

May 25, 1988 (‘‘The Blue Book’’), and 

EPA Region IX’s Guidance Document 

for Correcting Common VOC and Other 

Rule Deficiencies, August 21, 2001 (the 

‘‘Little Bluebook’’). 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 

Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Act Amendments of 1990’’ (57 FR 

55620, November 25, 1992) (‘‘the NOX

Supplement’’). 

5. Memorandum from William T. 

Harnett to Regional Air Division 

Directors (May 18, 2006), ‘‘RACT Qs & 

As—Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Questions and 

Answers’’. 

6. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 

2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 

Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) 

describing Region IX’s understanding of 

what constitutes a minimally acceptable 

RACT SIP. 

7. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 

2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 

Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing 

EPA’s current CTGs, ACTs, and other 

documents which may help to establish 

RACT. 

8. Comment letter dated May 18, 2006 

from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to 

SJV (George Heinen) on the 8-hour 

Ozone Reasonably Available Control 

Technology—State Implementation Plan 

(RACT SIP) Analysis, draft staff report 

dated April 18, 2006. 

9. Comment letter dated June 29, 2006 

from EPA Region IX (Andrew Steckel) to 

SJV (George Heinen) on the 8-hour 

Ozone Reasonably Available Control 

Technology—State Implementation Plan 

(RACT SIP) Analysis, final draft staff 

report dated June 15, 2006. 

10. Comment letter dated February 7, 

2008 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 

Steckel) to SJV (George Heinen) on the 

8-hour Ozone Reasonably Available 

Control Technology—State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) 

Analysis, draft staff report dated 

December 17, 2007. 

11. Comment letter dated April 1, 

2009 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 

Steckel) to SJV (Errol Villegas) on the 8- 

hour Ozone Reasonably Available 

Control Technology—State 

Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) 

Analysis, for the April 16, 2009 Hearing. 

B. Does the RACT SIP meet the 

evaluation criteria? 

SJV’s staff report includes a table 

(Table 2–1) which lists all the CTG 

source categories and matches those 

CTG categories with the corresponding 

District rule that implements RACT. 

Given its designation and classification 

as an extreme ozone nonattainment 

area, SJV is also required to implement 

RACT for all ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

of VOC or NOX—i.e., sources that emit 

or have the potential to emit at least 10 

tpy (CAA 182(e)). SJV staff searched for 

all source categories covered by a CTG 

and for sources that emit or have the 

potential to emit at least 10 tpy of VOC 

or NOX. 

EPA’s review of CARB’s emissions 

inventory Web site indicated the District 

had identified all major sources except 

for potentially four sources. Further 

discussion with CARB and the District 

indicates that three of these facilities are 

subject to permit conditions limiting 

their emissions to below 10 tpy, and the 

fourth does not have VOC emission 

sources. See TSD at 8. 

SJV identified two CTG categories 

(Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 

Operations—surface coating; and 

Manufacture of Synthesized 

Pharmaceutical Products), for which no 

sources covered by the CTGs currently 

operate in SJV. Further discussion with 

the District revealed a third CTG 

category (Manufacture of Pneumatic 

Rubber Tires), for which no covered 

sources operate in SJV. SJV has adopted 

and submitted, through CARB, negative 

declarations for all three of these CTG 

source categories. 

SJV’s RACT SIP analysis is extensive. 

For the most part, the District compared 

its rules against Federal and state 

regulations and to similar rules in the 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District, Bay Area Air Quality 

Management District, Sacramento 

Metropolitan Air Quality Management 

District, and Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District. In a few 

cases, the District concluded that a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55844 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

recently approved SIP rule fulfills RACT 

because EPA evaluated it for RACT. We 

note that EPA’s approval of a rule into 

the SIP does not necessarily mean that 

we have approved it as satisfying 

RACT—for example, EPA sometimes 

approves a rule only as a SIP 

strengthening action (e.g., to update 

definitions, add test methods, or remove 

exemptions) or only to incorporate nonsubstantive changes. 

We have independently evaluated 

each of the SJV rules and associated 

analysis to determine whether the RACT 

SIP meets CAA Section 182 RACT 

requirements. 

Specifically, we divided SJV’s rules 

into the following categories and 

evaluated each rule for compliance with 

RACT requirements. 

Group 1: Rules that EPA recently 

approved or proposed to approve as 

implementing RACT. 

Group 2: Rules for which we are not 

aware of more stringent controls that are 

reasonably available. 

Group 3: Rules that EPA has 

disapproved or proposed to disapprove, 

in full or in part, because SJV has failed 

to demonstrate they fully satisfy current 

RACT requirements. 

We identify below the rules in Group 

3. Our TSD contains more detailed 

analysis. 

C. What are the deficiencies? 

The District has not demonstrated that 

the following rules fully satisfy current 

RACT requirements. SJV is working to 

address our comments and has held or 

is scheduled to hold public workshops 

to amend the rules or provide additional 

analysis. Several of these rules were 

recently amended and submitted to 

EPA. 

1. Rule 4352—Solid Fuel Fired 

Boilers, Steam Generators, and Process 

Heaters—final limited approval/ 

disapproval October 1, 2010 (75 FR 

60623). District workshop tentatively 

planned for October 2011. 

2. Rule 4401—Steam Enhanced Crude 

Oil Production Wells—final limited 

approval/disapproval January 26, 2010 

(75 FR 3996). Amendments submitted to 

EPA on July 28, 2011. 

3. Rule 4402—Crude Oil Production 

Sumps—final limited approval/ 

disapproval July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39777). 

District workshop tentatively planned 

for October 2011. 

4. Rule 4605—Aerospace Assembly 

and Component Coating Operations— 

final limited approval/disapproval 

January 26, 2010 (75 FR 3996). 

Amendments submitted to EPA on July 

28, 2011. 

5. Rule 4625—Wastewater 

Separators—final limited approval/ 

disapproval July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39777). 

District workshop tentatively planned 

for October 2011. 

6. Rule 4682—Polystyrene, 

Polyethylene, And Polypropylene 

Products Manufacturing—proposed 

disapproval July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745). 

District workshop tentatively planned 

for October 2011. 

7. Rule 4684—Polyester Resin 

Operations—final limited approval/ 

disapproval January 26, 2010 (75 FR 

3996). Amendments adopted August 18, 

2011, not yet submitted to EPA. 

In addition, EPA is currently 

evaluating three rules not included in 

Groups 1, 2, or 3. These rules are listed 

below and identified under Group 4 in 

our TSD as rules for which we have not 

yet made a RACT determination. EPA 

will determine whether these rules 

satisfy RACT through separate 

rulemaking actions, subject to public 

notice and comment. 

1. Rule 4566—Compost—adopted 

August 18, 2011, not yet submitted to 

EPA. 

2. Rule 4694—Wine Fermentation and 

Storage Tanks—amendments adopted 

August 18, 2011, not yet submitted to 

EPA. 

3. Fumigant Volatile Organic 

Compound Regulations—California 

Department of Pesticide Regulation— 

submitted August 2, 2011. 

D. EPA’s Proposed Actions and 

Potential Consequences 

1. EPA’s Proposed Approvals and 

Disapprovals 

For the reasons discussed above and 

explained more fully in the TSD, EPA 

proposes to partially approve and 

partially disapprove SJVUAPCD’s RACT 

SIP submitted June 18, 2009. 

Specifically, under CAA section 

110(k)(3), we propose to approve those 

elements of the RACT SIP that pertain 

to the SJV rules identified in Groups 1 

or 2, which EPA has either fully 

approved or proposed to fully approve 

as satisfying the RACT requirements of 

CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f). 

Also under CAA section 110(k)(3), we 

propose to disapprove those elements of 

the RACT SIP that pertain to the SJV 

rules identified in Group 3, which EPA 

has either disapproved or proposed to 

disapprove in whole or in part, for 

failure to satisfy RACT requirements, 

and those elements of the RACT SIP that 

pertain to the rules in Group 4, for 

which EPA has not yet made a RACT 

determination. We will not finalize this 

partial disapproval, however, with 

respect to any rule that we fully approve 

as satisfying RACT before finalizing 

action on this RACT SIP. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposed partial approval 

and partial disapproval for the next 30 

days. 

2. CAA Consequences of a Final 

Disapproval 

EPA is committed to working with 

CARB and the District to resolve the 

remaining RACT deficiencies identified 

in this proposed action. However, 

should we finalize the proposed partial 

disapproval of the RACT SIP, the offset 

sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) 

would apply in the SJV ozone 

nonattainment area 18 months after the 

effective date of such final disapproval. 

The highway funding sanctions in CAA 

section 179(b)(1) would apply in the 

area six months after the offset sanction 

is imposed. Neither sanction will be 

imposed if California submits and we 

approve prior to implementation of 

sanctions, SIP revisions that correct the 

deficiencies identified in our proposed 

action. 

In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) 

provides that EPA must promulgate a 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

within two years after finding that a 

State has failed to make a required 

submission or disapproving a State 

implementation plan submission in 

whole or in part, unless EPA approves 

a SIP revision correcting the 

deficiencies within that two-year 

period. EPA previously found that the 

State had failed to submit a plan 

revision for SJV addressing the CAA 

section 182 RACT requirements for the 

1-hour ozone standard, starting a FIP 

clock that expired on January 21, 2011. 

See 74 FR 3442 (January 21, 2009). EPA 

is currently in litigation with 

environmental groups concerning this 

previous FIP deadline. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submittal 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 submittals, EPA’s role 

is to approve state choices, provided 

that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 

This action merely proposes to partially 

approve and partially disapprove State 

law as meeting Federal requirements 

and does not impose additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

State law. 

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

This proposed action is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 55845 

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is 

therefore not subject to review under the 

EO. 

B. Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed action does not impose 

an information collection burden under 

the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq, 

because this proposed partial approval 

and partial disapproval under section 

110 and subchapter I, part D of the 

Clean Air Act will not in-and-of itself 

create any new information collection 

burdens but simply proposes to 

disapprove certain State requirements 

submitted for inclusion in the SIP. 

Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b). 

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

generally requires an agency to conduct 

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 

rule subject to notice and comment 

rulemaking requirements unless the 

agency certifies that the rule will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Small entities include small businesses, 

small not-for-profit enterprises, and 

small governmental jurisdictions. For 

purposes of assessing the impacts of 

today’s rule on small entities, small 

entity is defined as: (1) A small business 

as defined by the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) regulations at 13 

CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental 

jurisdiction that is a government of a 

city, county, town, school district or 

special district with a population of less 

than 50,000; and (3) a small 

organization that is any not-for-profit 

enterprise which is independently 

owned and operated and is not 

dominant in its field. 

After considering the economic 

impacts of today’s proposed rule on 

small entities, I certify that this 

proposed action will not have a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. This proposed 

rule does not impose any requirements 

or create impacts on small entities. This 

proposed partial approval and partial 

disapproval of the SIP under CAA 

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of 

the Clean Air Act will not in-and-of 

itself create any new requirements but 

simply disapproves certain State 

requirements submitted for inclusion in 

the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no 

opportunity for EPA to fashion for small 

entities less burdensome compliance or 

reporting requirements or timetables or 

exemptions from all or part of the rule. 

The fact that the Clean Air Act 

prescribes that various consequences 

(e.g., higher offset requirements) may or 

will flow from a final disapproval does 

not mean that EPA either can or must 

conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis 

for this action. Therefore, this proposed 

action will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

We continue to be interested in the 

potential impacts of this proposed rule 

on small entities and welcome 

comments on issues related to such 

impacts. 

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

This proposed action contains no 

Federal mandates under the provisions 

of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 

1531–1538 for State, local, or Tribal 

governments or the private sector. EPA 

has determined that the proposed 

disapproval action does not include a 

Federal mandate that may result in 

estimated costs of $100 million or more 

to either State, local, or Tribal 

governments in the aggregate, or to the 

private sector. This action proposes to 

partially approve and partially 

disapprove pre-existing requirements 

under State or local law, and imposes 

no new requirements. Accordingly, no 

additional costs to State, local, or Tribal 

governments, or to the private sector, 

result from this action. 

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism 

Executive Order 13132, entitled 

‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999), requires EPA to develop an 

accountable process to ensure 

‘‘meaningful and timely input by State 

and local officials in the development of 

regulatory policies that have federalism 

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have 

federalism implications’’ is defined in 

the Executive Order to include 

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct 

effects on the States, on the relationship 

between the national government and 

the States, or on the distribution of 

power and responsibilities among the 

various levels of government.’’ 

This proposed action does not have 

federalism implications. It will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely proposes to partially approve 

and partially disapprove certain State 

requirements submitted for inclusion in 

the SIP and does not alter the 

relationship or the distribution of power 

and responsibilities established in the 

CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does 

not apply to this action. 

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination 

With Indian Tribal Governments 

This proposed action does not have 

Tribal implications, as specified in 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP EPA 

is proposing to partially approve and 

partially disapprove would not 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. 

Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 

apply to this action. 

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

Risks and Safety Risks 

EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only 

to those regulatory actions that concern 

health or safety risks, such that the 

analysis required under section 5–501 of 

the EO has the potential to influence the 

regulation. This proposed action is not 

subject to EO 13045 because it is not an 

economically significant regulatory 

action based on health or safety risks 

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 

19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed 

partial approval and partial disapproval 

of the SIP under section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 

will not in and of itself create any new 

regulations but simply disapproves 

certain State requirements submitted for 

inclusion in the SIP. 

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

This proposed rule is not subject to 

Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, 

May 22, 2001) because it is not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. 

I. National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law 

104–113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 

directs EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in its regulatory activities 

unless to do so would be inconsistent 

with applicable law or otherwise 

impractical. Voluntary consensus 

standards are technical standards (e.g., 

materials specifications, test methods, 

sampling procedures, and business 

practices) that are developed or adopted 

by voluntary consensus standards 

bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 

Congress, through OMB, explanations 

when the Agency decides not to use 

available and applicable voluntary 

consensus standards. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

55846 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 175 / Friday, September 9, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

The EPA believes that this proposed 

action is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of NTTAA because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA. 

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Population 

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 

7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes Federal 

executive policy on environmental 

justice. Its main provision directs 

Federal agencies, to the greatest extent 

practicable and permitted by law, to 

make environmental justice part of their 

mission by identifying and addressing, 

as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or 

environmental effects of their programs, 

policies, and activities on minority 

populations and low-income 

populations in the United States. 

EPA lacks the discretionary authority 

to address environmental justice in this 

proposed rule. In reviewing SIP 

submittals, EPA’s role is to approve or 

disapprove State choices, based on the 

criteria of the CAA. This action merely 

proposes to approve certain State 

requirements submitted for inclusion in 

the SIP under CAA section 110 and 

subchapter I, part D and to disapprove 

others, and will not in and of itself 

create any new requirements. 

Accordingly, it 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. 

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: August 31, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23151 Filed 9–8–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 260 and 261 

[EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0695; FRL–9461–8] 

RIN 2050–AG60 

Hazardous Waste Management 

System: Identification and Listing of 

Hazardous Waste: Carbon Dioxide 

(CO2) Streams in Geologic 

Sequestration Activities 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Technical correction. 

SUMMARY: On August 8, 2011, the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 

or the Agency) published a proposed 

rule in the Federal Register to revise the 

regulations for hazardous waste 

management under the Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 

to conditionally exclude carbon dioxide 

(CO2) streams that are hazardous from 

the definition of hazardous waste, 

provided these hazardous CO2 streams 

meet certain conditions. This correction 

is necessary because EPA published 

incorrect burden estimates in the 

Section VII.B. of the preamble to the 

proposed rule. However, EPA notes that 

the correct burden estimates were in the 

Information Collection Request (ICR) 

document prepared by EPA, submitted 

for approval to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, and 

placed into the docket for the August 8, 

2011 proposed rule. 

DATES: Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act, comments on the information 

collection provisions must be received 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) on or before October 11, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments to OMB at 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, 725 17th Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk 

Officer for EPA. In addition, send 

comments to EPA, identified by Docket 

ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010–0695, by 

one of the following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• E-mail: rcra-docket@epa.gov. 

• Fax: 202–566–9744. 

• Mail: RCRA Docket, Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mailcode: 2822T, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. In addition, please 

mail a copy of your comments on the 

information collection provisions to the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for EPA, 725 

17th St., NW., Washington, DC 20503. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver two copies 

of your comments to EPA West 

Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. 

Such deliveries are only accepted 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–RCRA–2010– 

0695. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received 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 information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. For additional information 

about EPA’s public docket, visit the EPA 

Docket Center homepage at http:// 

www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. Although 

listed in the index, some information is 

not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other 

information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Certain other 

material, such as copyrighted material, 

will be publicly available only in hard 

copy. Publicly available docket 

materials are available either 

electronically in http:// 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS