### 47092 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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 for clarifying the statutes and regulations in the Maryland State Implementation Plan for the preconstruction permitting requirements for electric generating stations in Maryland 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, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 22, 2011. W.C. Early, Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2011–19799 Filed 8–3–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR–2011–0499; FRL–9448–3]** 

**Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Reasonably**  **Available Control Technology for Oxides of Nitrogen for a Specific**  **Source in the State of New Jersey**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency.

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone submitted by the State of New Jersey. This SIP revision consists of a source-specific reasonably available control technology (RACT) determination for controlling oxides of nitrogen from the stationary reciprocating, diesel fuel fired, internal combustion engines operated by the Naval Weapons Station Earle located in Colts Neck, New Jersey. This actionproposes an approval of the sourcespecific RACT determination that was made by New Jersey in accordance with the provisions of its regulation to help meet the national ambient air quality standard for ozone. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to approve source-specific emissions limitations required by the Clean Air Act.

**DATES :**  Comments must be received on or before September 6, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit your comments, identified by Docket Number EPA–R02– OAR–2011–0499, by one of the following methods:

• http:// www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.

• E-mail: Werner.Raymond@epa.gov.

• Fax: 212–637–3901.

• Mail: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866.

• Hand Delivery: Raymond Werner, Chief, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2 Office, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007– 1866. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30 excluding Federal holidays.

Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket No. EPA–R02–OAR- 2011–0499. 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 or 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:// www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region II Office, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866. EPA requests, if at all possible, that you contact the individual listed in the **FOR FURTHER**
**INFORMATION CONTACT** section to view the hard copy of the docket. You may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT :**  Raymond K. Forde, Air Programs Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, 25th Floor, New York, New York 10007–1866, (212) 637–
3716 or Forde.Raymond@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :** 
Table of Contents
I. EPA’s Proposed Action

A. What action is EPA proposing today? B. Why is EPA proposing this action? C. What are the Clean Air Act requirements

for NO X RACT? D. What is EPA’s evaluation of New

Jersey’s SIP revision? II. New Jersey’s SIP Revision

A. What are New Jersey’s NO X RACT

requirements? B. What are New Jersey’s facility specific

NO X RACT requirements? C. When was New Jersey’s RACT

determination proposed and adopted? D. When was New Jersey’s proposed SIP

revision submitted to EPA? III. Conclusion VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. EPA’s Proposed Action A. What action is EPA proposing today?

EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey’s revision to the ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on May 14, 2009. This SIP revision relates to New Jersey’s NO X RACT determination for the Naval Weapons


### 47093 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Station Earle (NWSE) facility located in Colts Neck, New Jersey, Monmouth County. The facility contains two stationary reciprocating, diesel fuel fired, internal combustion engines—one existing and one new engine. B. Why is EPA proposing this action?

EPA is proposing this action to:

• Give the public the opportunity to submit comments on EPA’s proposed action, as discussed in the **DATES** and

**ADDRESSES** sections.

• Fulfill New Jersey’s and EPA’s requirements under the Clean Air Act (Act).

• Make New Jersey’s RACT determination federally enforceable.

C. What are the Clean Air Act requirements for NO X RACT? The Act requires certain states to develop RACT regulations for stationary sources of NOX and to provide for the implementation of the required measures as soon as practicable. Under the Act, the definition of a major stationary source is based on the tons per year (tpy) of air pollution a source emits and the quality of the air in the area of a source. In ozone transport regions, attainment/unclassified areas as well as marginal and moderate ozone attainment areas, a major stationary source for NO X is considered to be one which emits or has the potential to emit 100 tpy or more of NO X and is subject to the requirements of a moderate nonattainment area. New Jersey is within the Northeast ozone transport region, established by section 184(a) of the Act, and has defined a major stationary source of NOX as a source which has the potential to emit 25 tpy, the level set for severe nonattainment areas. For detailed information on the Act requirements for NOX RACT, see the Technical Support Document (TSD) prepared in support of this proposed action. A copy of the TSD is available upon request from the EPA Regional Office listed in the **ADDRESSES** section or it can be viewed at http:// www.regulations.gov. D. What is EPA’s evaluation of New Jersey’s SIP revision?

EPA has determined that New Jersey’s proposed SIP revision for the NOX RACT determination for NWSE’s engines is consistent with New Jersey’s NO X RACT regulation and EPA’s guidance. EPA’s basis for evaluating New Jersey’s proposed SIP revision is whether it meets the SIP requirements described in section 110 of the Act. EPA has determined that New Jersey’s proposed SIP revision will not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

After reviewing New Jersey’s SIP revision submittal, EPA found it administratively and technically complete. EPA has determined that the NO X emission limits identified in New Jersey’s Conditions of Approval document represent RACT for NWSE’s engines. The conditions contained in the Conditions of Approval document currently specify emissions limits, work practice standards, testing, monitoring, and recordkeeping/reporting requirements. These conditions are consistent with the NO X RACT requirements specified in Subchapter 19 of Chapter 27, Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Code and conform to EPA NOX RACT guidance. More specifically, EPA proposes to approve the current Conditions of Approval document which includes the following, to limit the:

1. NOX emissions rate from each engine to 11.3 g/bhp-hr,

2. Total NOX emissions rate while combusting 100% distillate oil to 4.67 tons per year for both engines combined,

3. Combined hours of operation for both engines to less than 675 hours per
year,

4. Operation of each engine to 75% load or less, and

5. Annual fuel usage to 20,047.50 gallons per year combined for both engines.

In addition, the Conditions of Approval specify the NO X emissions limits, combustion process adjustments mentioned above, emission testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, which States and sources will need to provide for through the Title V permitting process.
II. New Jersey’s SIP Revision A. What are New Jersey’s NO X RACT requirements?

New Jersey’s NO X RACT requirements are contained in Subchapter 19 entitled ‘‘Control of Oxides of Nitrogen’’, of Chapter 27, Title 7 of the New Jersey Administrative Code. New Jersey has made numerous revisions to Subchapter 19 since the original SIP submission. The current SIP approved version of Subchapter 19 was approved by EPA on August 3, 2010 (75 FR 45483). B. What are New Jersey’s facility-specific NO X RACT requirements? Section 19.13 of New Jersey’s regulation establishes a procedure for a case-by-case determination of what represents RACT for a major NO X facility, item of equipment, or source operation. This procedure applies to facilities considered major for NOX , which are in one of the following two situations: (1) If the NOX facility contains any source operation or item of equipment of a category not listed in section 19.2(b) or (c) which has the potential to emit more than 10 tons of NO X per year, or (2) if the owner or operator of a source operation or item of equipment of a category listed in section 19.2(b) or (c) seeks approval of an alternative maximum allowable emission rate. This proposal relates to a facility in the second situation listed above.

New Jersey’s procedure requires either submission of a NO X control plan, if specific emission limitations do not apply to the specific source, or submission of a request for an alternative maximum allowable emission rate if specific emission limitations do apply to the specific source. In either case, the owners/ operators must include a technical and economic feasibility analysis of the possible alternative control measures. Also, in either case, Subchapter 19 requires that New Jersey establish emission limits which rely on a RACT determination specific to the facility. The resulting NO X control plan or alternative maximum allowable emission rate must be submitted to EPA for approval as a SIP revision. C. When was New Jersey’s RACT determination proposed and adopted?

New Jersey’s RACT determination was proposed on January 16, 2009, with the public comment period ending February 16, 2009. New Jersey adopted the RACT determination on May 12, 2009 and supplemented this information on May 21, 2009. D. When was New Jersey’s SIP revision submitted to EPA?

New Jersey’s SIP revision was submitted to EPA on May 14, 2009 and supplementary information was provided on May 21, 2009. EPA determined that the submittal was administratively and technically complete on July 13, 2009.

III. Conclusion

EPA is proposing to approve the New Jersey SIP revision for an alternative RACT emission limit determination for the NWSE’s engines which includes source-specific NOx emissions limits for the engines, combustion process adjustments, emission testing, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements. EPA will


### 47094 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 150 / Thursday, August 4, 2011 / Proposed Rules

consider all comments submitted prior to any final rulemaking action. 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, 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 rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: July 26, 2011. Judith A. Enck, Regional Administrator, Region 2.
[FR Doc. 2011–19798 Filed 8–3–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0462; FRL–9437–7]**

**Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; South Coast Air**  **Quality Management District**

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polymeric cellular foam product manufacturing operations. We are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA).

**DATES :**  Any comments on this proposal must arrive by September 6, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2011–0462, 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 thebody 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.

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 :**  Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, wang.mae@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This proposal addresses the following local rule: South Coast Air Quality Management District Rule 1175, Control of Emissions from the Manufacturing of Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products. In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are approving this local rule in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is