56132 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

1Under EPA’s ‘‘parallel processing’’ procedure, 

EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with 

the State’s proposed rulemaking. If the State’s 

proposed rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that 

subsequent change and may publish another notice 

of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is 

made, EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the 

rule after responding to any submitted comments. 

Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 

after the rule has been fully adopted by California 

and submitted formally to EPA for incorporation 

into the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. 

• 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 Maryland’s section 

110(a)(2) infrastructure requirements for 

the 1997 8-hour ozone and PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, 

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, Nitrogen dioxide, 

Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, 

Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: August 11, 2011. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23280 Filed 9–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0733; FRL–9462–2] 

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 

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). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. In a separate interim final action 

published in the Rules section in 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

deferring related CAA sanctions that 

would otherwise apply to the 

SJVUAPCD. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0733, 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: 

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 revisions? 

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? 

By letter dated July 22, 2011, CARB 

submitted to EPA on behalf of 

SJVUAPCD a proposed rule, with 

request for parallel processing.1 See 

June 22, 2011 letter to Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 9, 

from James N. Goldstene, Executive 

Officer, CARB. 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the rule title. 

TABLE 1—RULE SUBMITTED BY CALIFORNIA FOR PARALLEL PROCESSING

Local 

agency 

Rule 

No. Rule title 

SJVUAPCD 4684 Polyester Resin Operations. 

CARB’s July 22, 2011 parallel 

processing request includes the District 

Notice of Public Hearing to be held on 

August 18, 2011 and the amended 

District Rule 4684. SJVUAPCD amended 

Rule 4684 on June 16, 2011. Due to 

procedural issues with the local public 

notification process, SJVUAPCD 

readopted these amendments on August 

18, 2011 and expects CARB to submit 

them to EPA soon. 

EPA is granting CARB’s request that 

EPA ‘‘parallel process’’ our review and 

propose action on the rule. All of the 

relevant documents are available for 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56133 

review in the docket for today’s 

proposed rulemaking. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 4684 (adopted locally December 

20, 2001) into the SIP on June 26, 2002 

(67 FR 42999). We also finalized a 

simultaneous limited approval and 

limited disapproval of a subsequent 

version of Rule 4684 (adopted locally on 

September 20, 2007) on January 26, 

2010 (75 FR 3996), thereby 

incorporating that version of the rule 

into the SIP. The SJVUAPCD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

September 17, 2009 and CARB 

submitted them to us on May 17, 2010, 

but we did not act on those revisions. 

On July 22, 2011, CARB submitted a 

request to EPA to approve further draft 

revisions to Rule 4684 using EPA’s 

authority to parallel process SIP 

revisions. SJVUAPCD adopted these 

amendments on August 18, 2011 and 

expects CARB to submit them to EPA 

soon. While we are only acting on the 

‘‘parallel processing’’ version, we have 

reviewed materials provided with 

previous submittals. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. Rule 4684 limits VOC 

emissions from polyester resin 

operations, associated organic solvent 

cleaning and storage, and disposal of 

solvents and waste solvent materials. 

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? 

Several statutory provisions apply to 

EPA’s evaluation of the rules. CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that 

regulations submitted to EPA for 

approval into a SIP must be clear and 

legally enforceable. CAA section 110(l) 

prohibits EPA from approving any SIP 

revision that would interfere with any 

applicable requirement concerning 

attainment and reasonable further 

progress (RFP) or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA, and CAA 

section 193 prohibits the modification 

of any SIP-approved control 

requirement in effect before November 

15, 1990, in a nonattainment area. CAA 

section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment 

areas to implement all reasonably 

available control measures (RACM), 

including such reductions in emissions 

from existing sources in the area as may 

be obtained through the adoption, at a 

minimum, of reasonably available 

control technology (RACT), as 

expeditiously as practicable. In 

addition, under CAA section 182(b)(2), 

ozone nonattainment areas classified as 

moderate or above must implement 

RACT for all VOC sources covered by a 

Control Technique Guideline (CTG) 

document and for all other major 

sources of VOCs. The SJVUAPCD 

regulates an ozone nonattainment area 

that is classified as Extreme under both 

the one-hour ozone and eight-hour 

ozone standards (40 CFR 81.305 (2011)) 

and Rule 4684 applies to major sources, 

as well as sources covered by a CTG 

document. Therefore, Rule 4684 must 

fulfill RACT requirements for VOCs. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT requirements include the 

following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

3. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for 

Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing 

Materials,’’ EPA–453/R–08–004, 

September 2008. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant CAA requirements and 

guidance regarding enforceability, 

RACT, and SIP revisions. The TSD has 

more information on our evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule 

The TSD describes one 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. Proposed Action, 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 

once we receive the final adopted 

version as a revision to the California 

SIP. If the final version of the rule 

submitted for SIP approval differs 

substantially from the version proposed 

and submitted for ‘‘parallel processing,’’ 

this will result in the need for 

additional proposed rulemaking on this 

rule. 

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. Our 

final action will permanently terminate 

the sanctions clocks associated with our 

January 26, 2010 action on the effective 

date of the final approval. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this 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 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
56134 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 176 / Monday, September 12, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

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, Intergovernmental 

relations, 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. 2011–23136 Filed 9–9–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0701; FRL–9462–4] 

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 

compound (VOC) emissions from steam 

enhanced crude oil production and 

aerospace coating operations. We are 

approving local rules that regulate 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. In a separate interim final action 

published in the Rules section in 

today’s Federal Register, we are 

deferring sanctions that would 

otherwise apply to the SJVUAPCD. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 12, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0701, 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: 

Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 

972–3576, borgia.adrianne@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were amended by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local Agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ....... 4401 Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells ............................................. 06/16/11 07/28/11 

SJVUAPCD ....... 4605 Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations ........................ 06/16/11 07/28/11 

On August 3, 2011, EPA determined 

that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rules 

4401 and 4605 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 these 

rules? 

On January 26, 2010 (75 FR 3996) we 

finalized a limited approval of versions 

of Rules 4401 and 4605 that were 

adopted locally on December 14, 2006 

and September 20, 2007 respectively, 

thereby incorporating those versions of 

the two rules into the SIP. We 

simultaneously finalized a limited 

disapproval of the same two rules based 

on our identification of deficiencies in 

each of these rules. SJVUAPCD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved versions 

on June 16, 2011 that were intended to 

address the deficiencies identified in 

our January 2010 action, and CARB 

submitted these revisions to us on July 

28, 2011. 


emcdonald on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS