Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 5709 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0733; FRL–9501–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions were proposed in the Federal 

Register on September 12, 2011 and 

concern volatile organic compound 

(VOC) emissions from polyester resin 

operations. We are approving a local 

rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on March 7, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0733 for 

this action. Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at http:// 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed at 

http://www.regulations.gov, some 

information may be publicly available 

only at the hard copy location (e.g., 

copyrighted material, large maps, multivolume reports), and some may not be 

available in either location (e.g., 

confidential business information 

(CBI)). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

974–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On September 12, 2011 (76 FR 56132), 

EPA proposed to approve the following 

rule into the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ...................................... 4684 Polyester Resin Operations .......................................... 08/18/11 08/26/11 

We proposed to approve this rule 

because we determined that it complied 

with the relevant CAA requirements. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the rule and our 

evaluation. 

Our proposed approval of Rule 4684 

responded to a July 22, 2011 request 

from the State to parallel process a 

version of the Rule proposed for local 

adoption on August 18, 2011. On 

August 26, 2011, CARB submitted to 

EPA the version of Rule 4684 that was 

adopted locally on August 18, 2011. We 

have reviewed this version, and it is 

unchanged from the version we 

proposed for approval on September 12, 

2011. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received no comments. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment that the 

submitted rule complies with the 

relevant CAA requirements. Therefore, 

as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the 

Act, EPA is fully approving this rule 

into the California SIP. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

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

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

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this action merely 

approves State law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by State law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5710 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 24 / Monday, February 6, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1Federal Implementation Plans to Reduce 

Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and 

Ozone in 27 States; Correction of SIP Approvals for 

22 States: Final Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). 

Available on the Web at http://www.epa.gov/ 

crossstaterule. 

2EPA did not finalize a FIP for Kansas with 

respect to the 1997 ozone NAAQS in the SNFR. 

EPA had previously approved a section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i) SIP submission from the state of 

Kansas for the 1997 ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS 

on March 9, 2007 (75 FR 10608), and that SIP 

submission did not rely on the unlawful CAIR 

trading programs or on the conclusion that 

compliance with CAIR was sufficient to satisfy its 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) obligations with respect to the 

1997 ozone and PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA therefore did 

not have the obligation to promulgate a FIP for 

Kansas under section 110(c)(1) of the CAA, and 

instead proposed a SIP Call for Kansas under 

section 110(k)(5) of the Act (76 FR 763, January 6, 

2011). EPA proposed to find Kansas’ SIP 

substantially inadequate to meet the requirements 

of 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) with respect to the 1997 ozone 

NAAQS based on the proposed conclusion that 

emissions from Kansas are significantly 

contributing to nonattainment or interfering with 

maintenance of the 1997 ozone NAAQS in another 

state. EPA has not taken final action yet on the 

proposed SIP Call. 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by April 6, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: November 18, 2011. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(405) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(405) New and amended regulations 

for the following APCDs were submitted 

on August 26, 2011 by the Governor’s 

designee. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District. 

(1) Rule 4684, ‘‘Polyester Resin 

Operations,’’ amended on August 18, 

2011. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–2599 Filed 2–3–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 97 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0491; FRL–9626–2] 

Federal Implementation Plans for Iowa, 

Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, and 

Wisconsin and Determination for 

Kansas Regarding Interstate Transport 

of Ozone: Effect of Stay of Transport 

Rule 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: A December 30, 2011 order of 

the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia Circuit stayed the 

Transport Rule, also known as the Cross 

State Air Pollution Rule.1 This 

document sets out EPA’s interpretation 

of the effect of the Court’s stay on the 

federal implementation plans finalized 

by EPA on December 15, 2011 (SNFR), 

which included the conclusion that 

Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, 

Oklahoma, and Wisconsin significantly 

contribute to nonattainment or interfere 

with maintenance of the 1997 ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) in other states and required 

sources in five states to comply with the 

Transport Rule’s ozone season NOX

trading program.2

DATES: The effective date of this notice 

of intent is February 6, 2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gabrielle Stevens, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Clean Air Markets 

Division, MC 6204J, Ariel Rios Building, 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW., 

Washington, DC 20460, telephone (202) 

343–9252, email at 

stevens.gabrielle@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

On July 6, 2011, the EPA issued a 

final rule promulgating the Transport 

Rule (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). The 

Transport Rule limits the interstate 

transport of emissions of nitrogen 

oxides (NOX) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

that contribute to harmful levels of fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone in 

downwind states. The rule identified 

emissions within 27 states in the eastern 

United States that significantly affect 

the ability of downwind states to attain 

and maintain compliance with the 1997 

and 2006 fine particulate matter 

NAAQS and the 1997 ozone NAAQS. 

EPA established trading programs to 

reduce these emissions through Federal 

Implementation Plans (FIPs) that 

regulate electric generating units (EGUs) 

in the 27 states. 

As explained in the preambles to the 

final Transport Rule (76 FR 48208) and 

the supplemental notice of final 

rulemaking (SNFR) (76 FR 80761), EPA 

updated and improved its modeling 

platforms and inputs in response to 

public comments received on the 

proposed Transport Rule and 

subsequent Notices of Data Availability 

(NODAs), and performed other updates. 

Therefore, some of the results of the 

analysis performed for the final 

Transport Rule differed from the results 

of the analysis conducted for the 

Transport Rule proposal. Under the 

proposed Transport Rule, EPA’s 

analysis did not identify Wisconsin, 

Iowa, and Missouri as states that 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment and/or interfere with 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS in 

another state with respect to the 1997 

ozone NAAQS. Under the final 

Transport Rule’s analysis, however, the 

results indicated that emissions from 

these states do interfere with 

maintenance of the ozone NAAQS of 

another state. The results also showed 

that emissions from Missouri 

significantly contribute to 

nonattainment of the ozone NAAQS in 

another state. The analysis for the final 

rule also identified two ozone 

maintenance receptors, located in 

Allegan County, Michigan and Harford 

County, Maryland, which were not 

identified by modeling conducted for 

the proposed rule. The analysis 

indicated that five states—Iowa, Kansas, 

Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin— 

interfered with maintenance problems 

at these receptors. EPA did not include 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES