### 37044 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05–1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.

2. Amend § 117.587 by revising paragraphs (a) introductory text and (a)(1) to read as follows:

**§ 117.587 Apponagansett River.**

(a) The draw of the Padanaram Bridge, mile 1.0, shall open on signal from 1 May through 31 October, between 6 a.m. and 9 p.m., daily, as follows:

(1) The bridge shall open on signal, twice an hour, on the hour and half hour between 6 a.m. and 9 a.m. and between 8 p.m. and 9 p.m.

* * * * *

Dated: June 10, 2011. Daniel A. Neptun, Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, First Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 2011–15809 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 9110–04–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0412; FRL–9324–1]**

**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 oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 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 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 July 25, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2011–0412, 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 :**  Idalia Pe  ́ rez, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 3248, perez.idalia@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 adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).



### TABLE 

### 1—S UBMITTED 

### R ULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

SJVUAPCD ................................. 4354 Glass Melting Furnaces ........................................................... ....... 09/16/10 04/05/11

On May 6, 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 August 17, 2006 (72 FR 41894). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on October 16, 2008 but did not submit it to us. C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?

NO X helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and PM, which harm human health and the environment. PM contributes 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 NO X and PM emissions. Rule 4354 limits NO X , oxides of sulfur (SO X), PM 10 , volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions from glass melting furnaces. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule.


### 37045 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 122 / Friday, June 24, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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), 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(b)(2) and 182(f)), must not interfere with any applicable requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP-approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (CAA 193). The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone and nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4354 must fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the following:

1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NO X Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992.

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).

3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).

4. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with Economic Incentive Programs,’’ US EPA, January 2001.

5. ‘‘Interim White Paper—Midwest RPO Candidate Control Measure: Glass Manufacturing’’, Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium, December 12,
2005.

6. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques Document— NO X Emissions from Glass Manufacturing’’, US EPA, June 1994.

7. ‘‘Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) Reference Document on Best Available Techniques in the Glass Manufacturing Industry’’, European Commission, December 2001.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are 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. 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 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. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: June 14, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011–15882 Filed 6–23–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 171**

**[EPA–HQ–OPP–2011–0049; FRL–8863–7]**

**RIN 2070–AJ77**

**Synchronizing the Expiration Dates of EPA Pesticide Applicator Certificates**  **With the Underlying State or Tribal Applicator Certificate** 

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

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  Restricted use pesticides (RUP) are those which may generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment without additional restrictions. RUPs may only be applied by or under the direct supervision of an applicator certified as competent by a certifying agency. A State, tribe, or Federal agency becomes a certifying agency by receiving approval from EPA on their certification plan. In areas not covered by a certifying agency, EPA may