56706 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

For purposes of judicial review, the 

two of the these determinations 

approved by today’s action are severable 

from one another. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

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

Dated: September 1, 2011. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2011–23527 Filed 9–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0735; FRL–9464–2] 

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 

confined animal facilities (CAFs) and 

biosolids, animal manure, and poultry 

litter 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. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

October 14, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0735, 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 e-mail 

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: 

Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX, 

(415) 972–3368, 

chilingaryan.sona@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 

rule and rule revision? 

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 adopted by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ................................. 4570 Confined Animal Facilities .............................................................. 10/21/10 4/5/11 

SJVUAPCD ................................. 4565 Biosolids, Animal Manure, and Poultry Litter Operations .............. 3/15/07 8/24/07 

On September 17, 2007, EPA 

determined that the submittal for 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 

appendix V, which must be met before 

formal EPA review. On May 6, 2011, 

EPA determined that the submittal for 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 met the 

completeness criteria. 

B. Are there other versions of these 

rules? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 4565. On January 14, 2010, EPA 

finalized a limited approval of an earlier 

version of Rule 4570 into the SIP. 

Simultaneously, EPA finalized a limited 

disapproval of the rule for exempting 

major source poultry operations and for 

an inadequate RACT analysis for swine 

and poultry (75 FR 2079). The 

SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 

4570 on October 21, 2010, partly to 

address these issues, and we are 

proposing action on that version of the 

rule. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule and rule revision? 

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 4570 requires 

management practices to reduce VOCs 

from dairies, beef feedlots, poultry 

houses, and other confined animal 

facilities. Rule 4565 requires 

management practices to reduce VOC 

emissions from land-application of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 178 / Wednesday, September 14, 2011 / Proposed Rules 56707 

biosolids and disposal at landfills and 

small and medium sized composting/cocomposting operations. Rule 4565 also 

requires add-on controls at large 

composting/co-composting operations. 

EPA’s technical support documents 

(TSDs) have more information about 

these rules. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), 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 (b)(2)), must not interfere 

with any applicable requirements 

concerning attainment and reasonable 

further progress (RFP), and must not 

relax existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). Section 172(c)(1) of the 

Act also requires implementation of all 

reasonably available control measures 

(RACM) as expeditiously as practicable 

in nonattainment areas. The SJVUAPCD 

regulates an ozone nonattainment area 

(see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 4565 and 

4570 must fulfill RACT. Additionally, 

the RACM requirement in CAA section 

172(c)(1) applies to this area. In this 

proposal, we are only evaluating RACT. 

In a separate rulemaking, EPA will take 

action on the State’s RACM 

demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS based on an evaluation of the 

control measures submitted as a whole 

and their overall potential to advance 

the applicable attainment date in the 

San Joaquin Valley. See 40 CFR 

51.912(d) and 51.1010. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

RACT and RACM requirements 

consistently 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. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987. 

4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans, 

General Preamble for the 

Implementation of Title I of the Clean 

Air Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 

13498, April 16, 1992. 

5. ‘‘Preamble, Final Rule to 

Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 

Ambient Air Quality Standard,’’ 70 FR 

71612, Nov. 29, 2005. 

6. Letter from William T. Hartnett to 

Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘RACT 

Qs & As—Reasonable Available Control 

Technology (RACT) Questions and 

Answers,’’ May 18, 2006. 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe these rules are consistent 

with the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 

relaxations. The revisions to Rule 4570 

address the deficiencies we noted in our 

January 14, 2010 limited disapproval 

action, and include lowering the rule 

applicability threshold for poultry 

facilities to include all major sources 

and an adequate RACT analysis for 

swine and poultry facilities. The TSDs 

have more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules 

The TSDs describe additional rule 

revisions that we recommend for the 

next time the local agency modifies the 

rules but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rules fulfill all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve them 

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 these rules 

into the federally enforceable SIP. If 

finalized as proposed, approval of Rule 

4570 would terminate all CAA sanction 

and FIP implications associated with 

EPA’s 2010 limited disapproval of a 

previous version of this rule. 

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 

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. 2011–23550 Filed 9–13–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS