Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0723-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Partial Approvals and Partial Disapprovals of Air Quality Implementation Plans: California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably Available Control Technology for Ozone
Posted Date: 2011-09-09T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55842-55846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23151]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0723; FRL-9462-3]

Partial Approval and Partial Disapproval of Air Quality 
Implementation Plans; California; San Joaquin Valley; Reasonably 
Available Control Technology for Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially disapprove 
a revision to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD or SJV) portion of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). Specifically, we propose to partially 
approve and partially disapprove SJVUAPCD's ``Reasonably Available 
Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for Ozone State Implementation 
Plan (SIP)'' (RACT SIP) for the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) 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 11, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0723, 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: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4122, tong.stanley@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us,'' 
and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What document did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this document?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted RACT SIP?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP?
    B. Does the RACT SIP meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the deficiencies?
    D. Proposed Action and Public Comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What document did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the document proposed for partial approval and 
partial disapproval with the date that it was adopted and submitted by 
the SJV.

                                           Table 1--Submitted Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                               Document                   Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD...................................  Reasonably Available Control             04/16/2009      06/18/2009
                                              Technology (RACT) Demonstration
                                              for Ozone State Implementation
                                              Plan (SIP).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 11, 2009, EPA determined that the submittal for SJV's 
RACT SIP 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 document?

    On October 8, 2004, SJV adopted its ``Extreme Ozone Attainment 
Demonstration Plan'' for the 1-hour ozone standard (2004 SIP). The plan 
was amended on October 20, 2005 and included 1-hour ozone RACT 
provisions. On September 5, 2008, the State withdrew the RACT 
provisions from the 2004 SIP and indicated SJV would satisfy its RACT 
obligation for the 1-hour ozone standard with a revised 8-hour ozone 
RACT SIP. Subsequent to the State's withdrawal of the RACT element, EPA 
published a Finding of Failure to Submit a required SIP revision for 
the 1-hour ozone standard (74 FR 3442, January 21, 2009). In this 
action, we indicated that first, offset sanctions as identified in CAA 
section 179(b) would apply, and next, highway funding sanctions would 
apply if the State failed to submit a SIP revision which included all 
required RACT rules and the supporting RACT demonstrations to meet CAA 
sections 172(c)(1), 182(b)(2), and 182(f) within the time frames 
specified in the CAA. See 74 FR at 3443. On June 18, 2009, the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted a revised RACT SIP 
demonstration for the 8-hour ozone standard. EPA's December 11, 2009 
completeness determination turned off the sanctions clocks.
    There is no previous version of this document in the SJV portion of 
the California SIP, although the SJV adopted

[[Page 55843]]

a prior version of the RACT SIP on August 17, 2006, and submitted it to 
us on January 31, 2007.\1\ We are proposing to act on only the most 
recently submitted version, but we have also reviewed materials 
provided with the 2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The SJV also revised the RACT SIP on December 28, 2007 to 
lower the major source threshold to 10 tons per year (tpy) and to 
address four new Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents. This 
revision was not submitted to EPA. See SJV 2009 RACT SIP dated April 
16, 2009 pg. 1-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What is the purpose of the submitted RACT SIP?

    Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) and Oxides of Nitrogen 
(NOX) help produce ground-level ozone, or smog, which harms 
human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires 
States to submit enforceable regulations that control VOC and 
NOX emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs 
for ozone nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above include 
implementation of RACT for any source covered by a Control Techniques 
Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major source of VOC or 
NOX. The SJV is subject to these requirements because it is 
designated and classified as an extreme ozone nonattainment area for 
the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, SJVUAPCD must adopt 
RACT level controls for all sources covered by a CTG document and for 
all major non-CTG sources of VOC or NOX.
    Section IV.G. of the preamble to EPA's final rule to implement the 
8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) discusses RACT SIP 
requirements. It states in part that where a RACT SIP is required, 
States implementing the 8-hour ozone standard must assure that RACT is 
met, either through a certification that previously required RACT 
controls represent RACT for 8-hour implementation purposes or through a 
new RACT determination. Since RACT may change over time as new 
technology becomes available or the cost of existing technology 
decreases, States must use the latest information available to 
demonstrate that their ozone SIPs continue to require RACT based on the 
current availability of technically and economically feasible controls. 
70 FR at 71655. The submitted RACT SIP provides SJV's analyses of the 
District's compliance with the section 182 RACT requirements for both 
the 1-hour and 8-hour ozone NAAQS. EPA's technical support document 
(TSD) has more information about SJV's analyses.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP?

    The rules and guidance documents that we used to evaluate SJV's 
RACT SIP include the following:
    1. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).
    2. ``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).
    3. Enforceability--Section 110(a) of the CAA requires enforceable 
emission limitations and other control measures. Several EPA guidance 
documents are used to evaluate rule enforceability, including Issues 
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations: 
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register, May 
25, 1988 (``The Blue Book''), and EPA Region IX's Guidance Document for 
Correcting Common VOC and Other Rule Deficiencies, August 21, 2001 (the 
``Little Bluebook'').
    4. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 
General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act 
Amendments of 1990'' (57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992) (``the 
NOX Supplement'').
    5. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division 
Directors (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers''.
    6. RACT SIPs, Letter dated March 9, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) describing Region IX's understanding 
of what constitutes a minimally acceptable RACT SIP.
    7. RACT SIPs, Letter dated April 4, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 
Steckel) to CARB (Kurt Karperos) listing EPA's current CTGs, ACTs, and 
other documents which may help to establish RACT.
    8. Comment letter dated May 18, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 
Steckel) to SJV (George Heinen) on the 8-hour Ozone Reasonably 
Available Control Technology--State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) 
Analysis, draft staff report dated April 18, 2006.
    9. Comment letter dated June 29, 2006 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 
Steckel) to SJV (George Heinen) on the 8-hour Ozone Reasonably 
Available Control Technology--State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) 
Analysis, final draft staff report dated June 15, 2006.
    10. Comment letter dated February 7, 2008 from EPA Region IX 
(Andrew Steckel) to SJV (George Heinen) on the 8-hour Ozone Reasonably 
Available Control Technology--State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) 
Analysis, draft staff report dated December 17, 2007.
    11. Comment letter dated April 1, 2009 from EPA Region IX (Andrew 
Steckel) to SJV (Errol Villegas) on the 8-hour Ozone Reasonably 
Available Control Technology--State Implementation Plan (RACT SIP) 
Analysis, for the April 16, 2009 Hearing.

B. Does the RACT SIP meet the evaluation criteria?

    SJV's staff report includes a table (Table 2-1) which lists all the 
CTG source categories and matches those CTG categories with the 
corresponding District rule that implements RACT. Given its designation 
and classification as an extreme ozone nonattainment area, SJV is also 
required to implement RACT for all ``major stationary sources'' of VOC 
or NOX--i.e., sources that emit or have the potential to 
emit at least 10 tpy (CAA 182(e)). SJV staff searched for all source 
categories covered by a CTG and for sources that emit or have the 
potential to emit at least 10 tpy of VOC or NOX.
    EPA's review of CARB's emissions inventory Web site indicated the 
District had identified all major sources except for potentially four 
sources. Further discussion with CARB and the District indicates that 
three of these facilities are subject to permit conditions limiting 
their emissions to below 10 tpy, and the fourth does not have VOC 
emission sources. See TSD at 8.
    SJV identified two CTG categories (Shipbuilding and Ship Repair 
Operations--surface coating; and Manufacture of Synthesized 
Pharmaceutical Products), for which no sources covered by the CTGs 
currently operate in SJV. Further discussion with the District revealed 
a third CTG category (Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires), for which 
no covered sources operate in SJV. SJV has adopted and submitted, 
through CARB, negative declarations for all three of these CTG source 
categories.
    SJV's RACT SIP analysis is extensive. For the most part, the 
District compared its rules against Federal and state regulations and 
to similar rules in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air 
Quality Management District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District. In a few cases, the District concluded that a

[[Page 55844]]

recently approved SIP rule fulfills RACT because EPA evaluated it for 
RACT. We note that EPA's approval of a rule into the SIP does not 
necessarily mean that we have approved it as satisfying RACT--for 
example, EPA sometimes approves a rule only as a SIP strengthening 
action (e.g., to update definitions, add test methods, or remove 
exemptions) or only to incorporate non-substantive changes.
    We have independently evaluated each of the SJV rules and 
associated analysis to determine whether the RACT SIP meets CAA Section 
182 RACT requirements.
    Specifically, we divided SJV's rules into the following categories 
and evaluated each rule for compliance with RACT requirements.
    Group 1: Rules that EPA recently approved or proposed to approve as 
implementing RACT.
    Group 2: Rules for which we are not aware of more stringent 
controls that are reasonably available.
    Group 3: Rules that EPA has disapproved or proposed to disapprove, 
in full or in part, because SJV has failed to demonstrate they fully 
satisfy current RACT requirements.
    We identify below the rules in Group 3. Our TSD contains more 
detailed analysis.

C. What are the deficiencies?

    The District has not demonstrated that the following rules fully 
satisfy current RACT requirements. SJV is working to address our 
comments and has held or is scheduled to hold public workshops to amend 
the rules or provide additional analysis. Several of these rules were 
recently amended and submitted to EPA.
    1. Rule 4352--Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, Steam Generators, and 
Process Heaters--final limited approval/disapproval October 1, 2010 (75 
FR 60623). District workshop tentatively planned for October 2011.
    2. Rule 4401--Steam Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells--final 
limited approval/disapproval January 26, 2010 (75 FR 3996). Amendments 
submitted to EPA on July 28, 2011.
    3. Rule 4402--Crude Oil Production Sumps--final limited approval/
disapproval July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39777). District workshop tentatively 
planned for October 2011.
    4. Rule 4605--Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations--
final limited approval/disapproval January 26, 2010 (75 FR 3996). 
Amendments submitted to EPA on July 28, 2011.
    5. Rule 4625--Wastewater Separators--final limited approval/
disapproval July 7, 2011 (76 FR 39777). District workshop tentatively 
planned for October 2011.
    6. Rule 4682--Polystyrene, Polyethylene, And Polypropylene Products 
Manufacturing--proposed disapproval July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745). 
District workshop tentatively planned for October 2011.
    7. Rule 4684--Polyester Resin Operations--final limited approval/
disapproval January 26, 2010 (75 FR 3996). Amendments adopted August 
18, 2011, not yet submitted to EPA.
    In addition, EPA is currently evaluating three rules not included 
in Groups 1, 2, or 3. These rules are listed below and identified under 
Group 4 in our TSD as rules for which we have not yet made a RACT 
determination. EPA will determine whether these rules satisfy RACT 
through separate rulemaking actions, subject to public notice and 
comment.
    1. Rule 4566--Compost--adopted August 18, 2011, not yet submitted 
to EPA.
    2. Rule 4694--Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks--amendments 
adopted August 18, 2011, not yet submitted to EPA.
    3. Fumigant Volatile Organic Compound Regulations--California 
Department of Pesticide Regulation--submitted August 2, 2011.

D. EPA's Proposed Actions and Potential Consequences

1. EPA's Proposed Approvals and Disapprovals
    For the reasons discussed above and explained more fully in the 
TSD, EPA proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove 
SJVUAPCD's RACT SIP submitted June 18, 2009. Specifically, under CAA 
section 110(k)(3), we propose to approve those elements of the RACT SIP 
that pertain to the SJV rules identified in Groups 1 or 2, which EPA 
has either fully approved or proposed to fully approve as satisfying 
the RACT requirements of CAA sections 182(b)(2) and (f).
    Also under CAA section 110(k)(3), we propose to disapprove those 
elements of the RACT SIP that pertain to the SJV rules identified in 
Group 3, which EPA has either disapproved or proposed to disapprove in 
whole or in part, for failure to satisfy RACT requirements, and those 
elements of the RACT SIP that pertain to the rules in Group 4, for 
which EPA has not yet made a RACT determination. We will not finalize 
this partial disapproval, however, with respect to any rule that we 
fully approve as satisfying RACT before finalizing action on this RACT 
SIP.
    We will accept comments from the public on this proposed partial 
approval and partial disapproval for the next 30 days.
2. CAA Consequences of a Final Disapproval
    EPA is committed to working with CARB and the District to resolve 
the remaining RACT deficiencies identified in this proposed action. 
However, should we finalize the proposed partial disapproval of the 
RACT SIP, the offset sanction in CAA section 179(b)(2) would apply in 
the SJV ozone nonattainment area 18 months after the effective date of 
such final disapproval. The highway funding sanctions in CAA section 
179(b)(1) would apply in the area six months after the offset sanction 
is imposed. Neither sanction will be imposed if California submits and 
we approve prior to implementation of sanctions, SIP revisions that 
correct the deficiencies identified in our proposed action.
    In addition, CAA section 110(c)(1) provides that EPA must 
promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) within two years after 
finding that a State has failed to make a required submission or 
disapproving a State implementation plan submission in whole or in 
part, unless EPA approves a SIP revision correcting the deficiencies 
within that two-year period. EPA previously found that the State had 
failed to submit a plan revision for SJV addressing the CAA section 182 
RACT requirements for the 1-hour ozone standard, starting a FIP clock 
that expired on January 21, 2011. See 74 FR 3442 (January 21, 2009). 
EPA is currently in litigation with environmental groups concerning 
this previous FIP deadline.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submittal 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 submittals, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. This action merely 
proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove State law as 
meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law.

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    This proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
under the terms of Executive Order (EO) 12866

[[Page 55845]]

(58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and is therefore not subject to review 
under the EO.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This proposed action does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 
3501 et seq, because this proposed partial approval and partial 
disapproval under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 
Act will not in-and-of itself create any new information collection 
burdens but simply proposes to disapprove certain State requirements 
submitted for inclusion in the SIP. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 
1320.3(b).

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. For purposes of assessing the impacts of today's rule on 
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as 
defined by the Small Business Administration's (SBA) regulations at 13 
CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government 
of a city, county, town, school district or special district with a 
population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is 
any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated 
and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this proposed action will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This 
proposed rule does not impose any requirements or create impacts on 
small entities. This proposed partial approval and partial disapproval 
of the SIP under CAA section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean 
Air Act will not in-and-of itself create any new requirements but 
simply disapproves certain State requirements submitted for inclusion 
in the SIP. Accordingly, it affords no opportunity for EPA to fashion 
for small entities less burdensome compliance or reporting requirements 
or timetables or exemptions from all or part of the rule. The fact that 
the Clean Air Act prescribes that various consequences (e.g., higher 
offset requirements) may or will flow from a final disapproval does not 
mean that EPA either can or must conduct a regulatory flexibility 
analysis for this action. Therefore, this proposed action will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities.
    We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of this 
proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related 
to such impacts.

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    This proposed action contains no Federal mandates under the 
provisions of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(UMRA), 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 for State, local, or Tribal governments or 
the private sector. EPA has determined that the proposed disapproval 
action does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or Tribal 
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This action 
proposes to partially approve and partially disapprove pre-existing 
requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or Tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
    This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to 
partially approve and partially disapprove certain State requirements 
submitted for inclusion in the SIP and does not alter the relationship 
or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the 
CAA. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to this action.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    This proposed action does not have Tribal implications, as 
specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP EPA is proposing to partially approve and partially 
disapprove would not 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this action.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    EPA interprets EO 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying 
only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, 
such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the EO has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This proposed action is not 
subject to EO 13045 because it is not an economically significant 
regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive 
Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This proposed partial 
approval and partial disapproval of the SIP under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act will not in and of itself 
create any new regulations but simply disapproves certain State 
requirements submitted for inclusion in the SIP.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action 
under Executive Order 12866.

I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (``NTTAA''), Public Law 104-113, 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) 
directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards in its regulatory 
activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or 
otherwise impractical. Voluntary consensus standards are technical 
standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling 
procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted by 
voluntary consensus standards bodies. NTTAA directs EPA to provide 
Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency decides not to use 
available and applicable voluntary consensus standards.

[[Page 55846]]

    The EPA believes that this proposed action is not subject to 
requirements of Section 12(d) of NTTAA because application of those 
requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.

J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental 
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Population

    Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes 
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision 
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and 
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission 
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high 
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, 
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income 
populations in the United States.
    EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental 
justice in this proposed rule. In reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role 
is to approve or disapprove State choices, based on the criteria of the 
CAA. This action merely proposes to approve certain State requirements 
submitted for inclusion in the SIP under CAA section 110 and subchapter 
I, part D and to disapprove others, and will not in and of itself 
create any new requirements. Accordingly, it 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, 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. 2011-23151 Filed 9-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P