68294 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

read in conjunction with these 

provisions to be meaningful. 

For all of the reasons discussed above, 

the submission relating to public 

participation on which EPA had an 

obligation, under the Settlement 

Agreement, to take action is no longer 

before us. Instead, the effect of the July 

2010 submissions and withdrawals is to 

create a new submission, as of July 2, 

2010, which combines the three 

unwithdrawn provisions with the July 

2010 submissions and creates a single 

integrated submission that must 

subsequently be reviewed as provided 

under section 110(k) of the CAA. Thus, 

EPA will evaluate these three 

subsections, 30 TAC sections 39.411(a), 

55.152(b) and 39.418(b)(3), when we 

evaluate, pursuant to section 110(k) of 

the CAA, the newly adopted public 

participation regulations submitted by 

Texas on July 2, 2010. 

Withdrawal of EPA’s Proposed Action 

on Chapter 116 

EPA is also withdrawing our 

proposed limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the revisions to 30 TAC 

Chapter 116 submitted on December 15, 

1995; July 22, 1998; and October 25, 

1999. The 30 TAC Chapter 116 

submissions are not a component of the 

Settlement Agreement, and while TCEQ 

withdrew the previously-noted sections 

of Chapters 39 and 55, TCEQ has not 

withdrawn these Chapter 116 

submissions. Specifically, EPA is 

withdrawing our proposed limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 30 

TAC section 116.312 as submitted by 

TCEQ on December 15, 1995. The TCEQ 

repealed and replaced this section with 

new section 116.312 on July 22, 1998. 

Therefore, EPA finds that the December 

15, 1995 submittal of 30 TAC 116.312 is 

moot. The TCEQ submitted new section 

116.312 on July 22, 1998 and 

amendments to this section on October 

25, 1999. The TCEQ also submitted 

amendments to 30 TAC sections 

116.111, 116.114, and 116.116 on 

October 25, 1999. Because these 

sections all cross-reference and rely on 

the Chapter 39 public participation 

provisions that have been withdrawn 

and replaced with the July 2, 2010, SIP 

submittal, EPA will also consider these 

revisions in the context of the July 2, 

2010, Chapter 39 public participation 

SIP submittal. Therefore, we are 

withdrawing our proposed limited 

approval and limited disapproval and 

will evaluate the July 22, 1998 and 

October 25, 1999, revisions to 30 TAC 

section 116.312 and the October 25, 

1999, revisions to 30 TAC sections 

116.111, 116.114, and 116.116 when we 

evaluate, pursuant to section 110(k) of 

the CAA, the newly adopted public 

participation regulations submitted by 

Texas on July 2, 2010. EPA is also 

withdrawing our proposed limited 

approval and limited approval of the 

October 25, 1999, revisions to 30 TAC 

section 116.183. However, because this 

section provides public notice 

requirements for hazardous air 

pollutants subject to section 112(g) of 

the CAA, we find that no further action 

is necessary on the revisions to this 

section because 112(g) requirements are 

not part of the SIP. EPA is also 

withdrawing our proposed limited 

approval and limited disapproval of the 

October 25, 1999, revisions to 30 TAC 

section 116.740 because EPA fully 

disapproved this revision in our July 15, 

2010, disapproval of the Texas Flexible 

Permits Program (see 75 FR 41312). 

Note that even though EPA proposed 

limited approval and limited 

disapproval of 30 TAC sections 116.111, 

116.114, 116.116, and 116.312 at the 

same that we proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval of the 

remainder of the Texas Public 

Participation provisions, the timing of 

action on these Chapter 116 provisions 

is not governed by the Settlement 

Agreement. Therefore, our withdrawal 

today of the proposed limited approval 

and limited disapproval of 30 TAC 

sections 116.111, 116.114, 116.116, and 

116.312 does not impact in any way 

EPA’s obligations or actions under the 

Settlement Agreement. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental 

relations, Lead, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

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

Dated: October 29, 2010. 

Al Armendariz, 

Regional Administrator, Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28013 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2010–0794; FRL–9222–5] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan 

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), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of 

sulfur (SO2) and particulate matter 

emissions from boilers, steam generators 

and process heaters greater than 5.0 

MMbtu/hour. 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 

December 6, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2010–0794], 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 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. 

Docket: The index to the docket for 

this action is 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 in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), and 

some may not be publicly available in 

either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the 

hard copy materials, please schedule an 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 68295 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Idalia Perez, 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? 

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. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local Agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD .............................. 4320 Advance Emission Reduction Options for Boilers, Steam Generators and Process Heaters greater than 5.0 MMbtu/hr.10/16/08 03/17/09 

On April 20, 2009, EPA determined 

that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 

4320 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? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 4320 in the SIP. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule? 

NOX helps produce ground-level 

ozone, smog and particulate matter, 

which harm human health and the 

environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 

requires States to submit regulations 

that control NOX emissions. Rule 4320 

limits NOX, SO2, PM10 and CO 

emissions from boilers, steam generators 

and process heaters with a total rated 

heat input greater than 5 MMBtu/hour. 

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), 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, SIP rules 

must implement Reasonably Available 

Control Measures (RACM), including 

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology (RACT), in nonattainment 

areas (see CAA sections 172(c)(1)). The 

SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone 

nonattainment area and a PM–2.5 

nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), 

so the SIP as a whole, including Rule 

4320 and 4306, must fulfill RACT and 

implement a RACM level of control. 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability, RACT 

and RACM 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 NOX

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. ‘‘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. 

5. ‘‘Clean Air Fine Particle 

Implementation Rule’’ 72 FR 20586, 

April 25, 2007. 

6. ‘‘Determination of Reasonably 

Available Control Technology and Best 

Available Retrofit Control Technology 

for Industrial, Institutional, and 

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators, 

and Process Heaters’’, CARB, July 18, 

1991. 

7. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from 

Industrial/Commercial/Institutional 

(ICI) Boilers’’, US EPA 453/R–94–022, 

March 1994. 

8. ‘‘Alternative Control Techniques 

Document—NOX Emissions from Utility 

Boilers’’, US EPA 452/R–93–008, March 

1994. 

9. ‘‘Control Techniques for Sulfur 

Oxide Emissions from Stationary 

Sources’’, US EPA 450/3–81–004, April 

1981. 

10. ‘‘Improving Air Quality with 

Economic Incentive Programs,’’ US EPA, 

452/R–01–001, January 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. However, we do not believe 

that the rule is consistent with EPA’s 

Economic Incentive Programs (EIP) 

guidance. The rule includes payment of 

a fee as an option for compliance and 

prohibitory rules that include fee 

provisions are EIPs subject to the EIP 

guidance. The District will use the fees 

to purchase emission reductions. To 

ensure that all emission reductions 

purchased by the District are adequately 

surplus, quantifiable, enforceable, 

permanent and otherwise consistent 

with EPA’s EIP guidance, this 

component of the program must be fully 

described and included in a SIP 

submittal. The existing submittal of 

Rule 4320 does not include all 

necessary details on how creditable 

emission reductions will be achieved. 

Thus, it is not appropriate to fully credit 

emission reductions for this rule 

without additional documentation. 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. 

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. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS

68296 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 214 / Friday, November 5, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

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, 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, 

Particulate matter, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements. 

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

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2010–28019 Filed 11–4–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 60 

[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559; FRL–9222–4] 

RIN 2060–AP90 

Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: 

Sewage Sludge Incineration Units; 

Correction 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule; technical 

correction. 

SUMMARY: This action clarifies certain 

text of the proposed rules titled 

‘‘Standards of Performance for New 

Stationary Sources and Emission 

Guidelines for Existing Sources: Sewage 

Sludge Incineration Units.’’ The 

proposed rules were published in the 

Federal Register on October 14, 2010. 

The action proposes how EPA will 

address Clean Air Act requirements to 

establish new source performance 

standards for new units and emission 

guidelines for existing units for specific 

categories of solid waste incineration 

units. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before November 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

referencing Docket ID Number EPA– 

HQ–OAR–2009–0559 by one of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• A-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 

• Facsimile: Fax your comments to 

(202) 566–1741, Attention Docket ID 

Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0559. 

• Mail: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center 

(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket 

Information Center, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW.; Mail Code: 6102T, 

Washington, DC 20460. Please include a 

total of two copies. We request that a 

separate copy also be sent to the contact 

person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section below. 

• Hand Delivery: To send comments 

or documents through a courier service, 

the address to use is: EPA Docket 

Center, Public Hearing Room, EPA 

West, Room 334, 1301 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20004. 

Such deliveries are accepted only 

during the Docket’s normal hours of 

operation—8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday. Special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. Please 

include a total of two copies. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Amy Hambrick, Natural Resource and 

Commerce Group, Sector Policies and 

Programs Division (E143–03), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 

27711; telephone number: (919) 541– 

0964; facsimile number: (919) 541–3470; 

e-mail address: hambrick.amy@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Organization of This Document. The 

following outline is provided to aid in 

locating information in this notice. 

I. What is the background for the correction? 

II. What are the corrections to the proposed 

rules (75 FR 63260)? 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What is the background for the 

correction? 

On October 14, 2010 (75 FR 63260), 

EPA proposed rules that would address 

in part Clean Air Act requirements to 

establish new source performance 

standards (NSPS) for new units and 

emission guidelines (EG) for existing 

units for specific categories of solid 

waste incineration units. In that action, 

EPA proposed NSPS and EG for sewage 

sludge incineration (SSI) units. EPA 

subsequently determined that one 

sentence in the proposed regulatory text 

could have been interpreted in a manner 

inconsistent with what EPA intended to 

propose. This notice clarifies that 

language. 

This action does not affect the 

substance of the proposed rules, nor 

does it change the rights or obligations 

of any party. Rather, this notice merely 

clarifies certain regulatory text in the 

proposed rules. This action is minor, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS