Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 66429 

18Final 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). 

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 

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. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

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. 

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 

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. 

http://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. 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 214 / Monday, November 5, 2012 / Proposed Rules 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 

WREIER-AVILES on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS