[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 175 (Friday, September 9, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 55842-55846]
[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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    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<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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

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

(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.

    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


[Federal Register: June 28, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 124)]
[Notices]
[Page 36786-36787]
[DOCID:fr28jn06-77]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0294; FRL-8059-3]

Naptalam Sodium; Reregistration Eligibility Decision for Low Risk
Pesticide; Notice of Availability

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of EPA's Reregistration
Eligibility Decision (RED) for the pesticide naptalam sodium, and opens
a public comment period on this document, related risk assessments, and
other support documents. EPA has reviewed the low risk pesticide
naptalam sodium through a modified, streamlined version of the public
participation process that the Agency uses to involve the public in
developing pesticide reregistration and tolerance reassessment
decisions. Through these programs, EPA is ensuring that all pesticides
meet current health and safety standards.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 28, 2006.

ADDRESSES:  Submit your comments, identified by docket identification
(ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2006-0294, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.

Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Mail: Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) Regulatory Public
Docket (7502P), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania
Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460-0001.
     Delivery: OPP Regulatory Public Docket (7502P),
Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. Deliveries are only
accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation (8:30 a.m. to 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays). Special
arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. The
Docket telephone number is<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-
2006-0294. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the docket without change and may be made available on-line at
http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information

provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov or e-
mail. The Federal regulations.gov website is an ``anonymous access''
system, which means EPA will not know your identity or contact
information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you
send an e-mail comment directly to EPA without going through
regulations.gov, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and
included as part of the comment that is placed in the docket and made
available on the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA
recommends that you include your name and other contact information in
the body of your comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters,
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the docket index.
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly
available, e.g., CBI or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either in the electronic docket at http://www.regulations.gov
, or, if only available in hard copy, at the OPP

Regulatory Public Docket in Rm. S-4400, One Potomac Yard (South
Building), 2777 S. Crystal Drive, Arlington, VA. The hours of operation
of this Docket Facility are from 8:30 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays. The Docket telephone number is (703)
305-5805.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Perry, Special Review and
Reregistration Division (7508P), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave.,
NW.,Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax
number:<PHONE_NUMBER>; e-mail address<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

    This action is directed to the public in general, and may be of
interest to a wide range of stakeholders including environmental, human
health, and agricultural advocates; the chemical industry; pesticide
users; and members of the public interested in the sale, distribution,
or use of pesticides. Since others also may be interested, the Agency
has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be
affected by this action. If you have any questions regarding the
applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

B. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    1.  Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through
regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or
CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the
specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one
complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as
CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information
claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket.
Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
    2.  Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments,
remember to:
    i. Identify the document by docket ID number and other identifying
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    ii. Follow directions. The Agency may ask you to respond to
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    iii.Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and
substitute language for your requested changes.

    iv. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information
and/or data that you used.
    v. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be
reproduced.
    vi. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and
suggest alternatives.
    vii. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of
profanity or personal threats.
    viii. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.

II. Background

A. What Action is the Agency Taking?

    Under section 4 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), EPA is reevaluating existing pesticides to
ensure that they meet current scientific and regulatory standards.
Using a modified, streamlined version of its public participation
process, EPA has completed a RED for the low risk pesticide, naptalam
sodium under section 4(g)(2)(A) of FIFRA. Naptalam sodium is registered
for use as liquid as a pre-emergent herbicide for control of broadleaf
weeds in cucurbits and woody nursery stock. Naptalam sodium may be
applied as a broadcast application at planting and/or over the top of
the cucurbits in the early season before they begin to vine. For weed
control in woody nursery stock, the product label indicates that it may
be applied as a broadcast spray prior to transplanting or as a soil-
directed spray around established stock. For both cucurbits and woody
nursery stock application, the product label recommends watering-in
following application. EPA has determined that the data base to support
reregistration is substantially complete and that products containing
naptalam sodium will be eligible for reregistration, provided the risks
are mitigated either in the manner described in the RED or by another
means that achieves equivalent risk reduction. Upon submission of any
required product-specific data under section 4(g)(2)(B) and any
necessary changes to the registration and labeling (either to address
any concerns identified in the RED or as a result of product-specific
data), EPA will make a final reregistration decision under section
4(g)(2)(C) for products containing naptalam sodium.
    EPA must review tolerances and tolerance exemptions that were in
effect when the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) was enacted in
August 1996, to ensure that these existing pesticide residue limits for
food and feed commodities meet the safety standard established by the
new law. Tolerances are considered reassessed once the safety finding
has been made or a revocation occurs. EPA has reviewed and made the
requisite safety finding for the naptalam sodium tolerances included in
this notice.
    Although the naptalam sodium RED was signed on September 30, 2004,
certain components of the document, which did not affect the final
regulatory decision, were undergoing final editing at that time. These
components, including the list of additional generic data requirements,
summary of labeling changes, appendices, and other relevant
information, have been added to the naptalam sodium RED document. In
addition, subsequent to signature, EPA identified several minor errors
and ambiguities in the document. Therefore, for the sake of accuracy,
the Agency also has included the appropriate error corrections,
amendments, and clarifications. None of these additions or changes
alter the conclusions documented in the September 30, 2004, naptalam
sodium RED. All of these changes are described in detail in an errata
memorandum which is included in the public docket for naptalam sodium.
    EPA is applying the principles of public participation to all
pesticides undergoing reregistration and tolerance reassessment. The
Agency's Pesticide Tolerance Reassessment and Reregistration; Public
Participation Process, published in the  Federal Register on May 14,
2004 (69 FR 26819) (FRL-7357-9), explains that in conducting these
programs, the Agency is tailoring its public participation process to
be commensurate with the level of risk, extent of use, complexity of
issues, and degree of public concern associated with each pesticide.
EPA can expeditiously reach decisions for pesticides like naptalam
sodium, which pose few risk concerns, have low use, affect few if any
stakeholders, and require little risk mitigation. Once EPA assesses
uses and risks for such low risk pesticides, the Agency may go directly
to a decision and prepare a document summarizing its findings, such as
the naptalam sodium RED.
    The reregistration program is being conducted under Congressionally
mandated time frames, and EPA recognizes the need both to make timely
decisions and to involve the public in finding ways to effectively
mitigate pesticide risks. Naptalam sodium, however, poses few or no
risks that require mitigation. The Agency therefore is issuing the
naptalam sodium RED, its risk assessments, and related support
materials simultaneously for public comment. The comment period is
intended to provide an opportunity for public input and a mechanism for
initiating any necessary amendments to the RED. All comments should be
submitted using the methods in  ADDRESSES, and must be received by EPA
on or before the closing date. These comments will become part of the
Agency Docket for naptalam sodium. Comments received after the close of
the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to
consider these late comments.
    EPA will carefully consider all comments received by the closing
date and will provide a Response to Comments Memorandum in the Docket
and regulations.gov. If any comment significantly affects the document,
EPA also will publish an amendment to the RED in the Federal Register.
In the absence of substantive comments requiring changes, the naptalam
sodium RED will be implemented as it is now presented.

B. What is the Agency's Authority for Taking this Action?

    Section 4(g)(2) of FIFRA as amended directs that, after submission
of all data concerning a pesticide active ingredient, ``the
Administrator shall determine whether pesticides containing such active
ingredient are eligible for reregistration,'' before calling in
product-specific data on individual end-use products and either
reregistering products or taking other ``appropriate regulatory
action.''
    Section 408(q) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA),
21 U.S.C. 346a(q), requires EPA to review tolerances and exemptions for
pesticide residues in effect as of August 2, 1996, to determine whether
the tolerance or exemption meets the requirements of section 408(b)(2)
or (c)(2) of FFDCA. This review is to be completed by August 3, 2006.

List of Subjects

    Environmental protection, Pesticides and pests.

    Dated: June 19, 2006.
Debra Edwards,
Director, Special Review and Reregistration Division, Office of
Pesticide Programs.
[FR Doc. 06-5862 Filed 6-27-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-S