Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District, 48166-48169 [E8-19073]

Download as PDF 48166 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of Tennessee on October 19, 2007. The revision affects the Nashville/Davidson County portion of the Tennessee SIP. Specifically the revision pertains to the Metropolitan Public Health Department, Pollution Control Division’s Regulation Number 8, ‘‘Inspection and Maintenance of Light-Duty Motor Vehicles.’’ This revision is part of Nashville/Davidson County’s strategy to meet the requirements of EPA’s 1997 8-hour ozone standard. Regulation Number 8 is amended by reducing the vehicle emission inspection fee to $9.00, and updating the definitions section. This revision is considered by the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) to be at least as stringent as the State of Tennessee’s preexisting requirements. This action is being taken pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, EPA is approving the State’s SIP revision as a direct final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal and anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to this rule, no further activity is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this document. Any parties interested in commenting on this document should do so at this time. DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 17, 2008. Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– OAR–2008–0051, by one of the following methods: 1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 2. E-mail: hou.james@epa.gov. 3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2008– 0051,’’ Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Mr. James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS ADDRESSES: VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:51 Aug 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office’s normal hours of operation. The Regional Office’s official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays. Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for detailed instructions on how to submit comments. Mr. James Hou, Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The telephone number is (404) 562–8965. Mr. Hou can also be reached via electronic mail at hou.james@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule which is published in the Rules Section of this Federal Register. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dated: July 30, 2008. Russell L. Wright Jr., Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. E8–18966 Filed 8–15–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2008–0612; FRL–8705–7] Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the Yolo Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the District’s analysis of whether its rules meet Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). We are proposing to disapprove the analysis 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 September 17, 2008. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2008–0612, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 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: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at 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 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. ADDRESSES: 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 analysis? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP analysis? E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation criteria? C. What are the deficiencies? D. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the RACT SIP Analysis E. Proposed Action and Public Comment III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What document did the State submit? 48167 adopted and submitted by the California Air Resources Board. Table 1 lists the document proposed for disapproval with the date that it was TABLE 1—SUBMITTED DOCUMENT Local agency Document YSAQMD ................... Reasonably Available Control Technology ...................................................................... II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action This submittal became complete by operation of law on July 31, 2007. B. Are there other versions of this document? There is no previous version of this document in the SIP. C. What is the purpose of the submitted RACT SIP analysis? VOCs and NOX help produce groundlevel ozone and smog, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires States to submit regulations that control VOC and NOX emissions. Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 require areas that are designated as moderate or above for ozone non-attainment to adopt RACT. The YSAQMD is subject to this requirement as it is designated as a serious ozone non-attainment area under the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone (40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, the YSAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT level controls for sources covered by a Control Technique Guidelines (CTG) document and for any major non-CTG source. Section IV.G. of EPA’s final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone NAAQS (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that where a RACT SIP is required, States implementing the 8hour ozone standard generally must assure that RACT is met, either through a certification that previously required RACT controls represent RACT for 8hour implementation purposes or through a new RACT determination. The submitted document provides YSAQMD’s analysis of their RACT rules for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about YSAQMD’s RACT analysis. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS Adopted A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP analysis? The rules and guidance documents that we use to evaluate whether the analysis fulfills RACT include the following: 1. Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005). 2. Letter from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006), ‘‘RACT Qs & As—Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers’’. 3. 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). 4. 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. 5. 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. B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation criteria? YSAQMD’s staff report included a table (Table A) listing all CTG source categories and matching those CTG categories with the corresponding District rule which implements RACT. Given its designation as a serious ozone non-attainment area, YSAQMD was also required to analyze RACT for all sources that emit or have the potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of NOX or VOCs (CAA 182(c)). YSAQMD staff searched 09/13/06 Submitted 01/31/07 for all sources that would be subject to a CTG and for sources that emitted or have the potential to emit at least 25 tpy of VOC or NOX. YSAQMD identified three sources, Agrium U.S., Inc, Premier Industries (now Insulfoam), and Woodland Biomass Power Ltd., as major sources not subject to a District RACT rule. YSAQMD points out that under Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the District can submit a plan revision based on a commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures up to one year after the date of approval of the plan revision. YSAQMD generally committed to submitting the required RACT rules for these sources within one year of approval of the plan revision. Under CAA Section 110(k)(4), however, EPA may approve a plan revision only where the State commits to adopt ‘‘specific enforceable measures by a date certain’’, not later than one year after the approval of the plan revision. YSAQMD’s generalized commitment to submit RACT rules within a year for the sources and source categories that are currently not subject to RACT rules fails to provide the ‘‘specific enforceable measures by a date certain’’ required by CAA Section 110(k)(4). Accordingly, EPA concludes it is not appropriate to grant a conditional approval of the District’s RACT certification. The RACT certification provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized in the next section and discussed further in the TSD. YSAQMD’s staff report also includes a negative declaration listing 13 CTG categories for which there are no sources in the District subject to the CTGs and no District rules covering those categories. These categories are provided in Table 2. TABLE 2—NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS CTG source category CTG reference document Aerospace ................................................................................................. EPA–453/R–97–004—Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework Operations. VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:51 Aug 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1 48168 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2—NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS—Continued CTG source category CTG reference document Ships ......................................................................................................... Metal Coil Container and Closure ............................................................ 61 FR 44050 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair. EPA–450/2–77–008—Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA–450/2–77–033—Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. EPA–450/2–83–007—Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants. EPA–450/2–77–025—Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds. EPA–450/2–78–036—VOC Leaks from Petroleum Refinery Equipment. EPA–450/2–77–008—Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks. EPA–450/3–82–009—Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners. EPA–450/2–78–030—Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. EPA–450/2–77–034—Surface Coating of Large Appliances. EPA–450/2–78–032—Factory Surface of Flat Wood Paneling. Possible error—YSAQMD listed the polymer/Resin CTG under this category. EPA–450/3–83–006—Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. Magnetic Wire ........................................................................................... Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants, Equipment Leaks ................... Refineries .................................................................................................. Paper and Fabric ...................................................................................... Dry Cleaning ............................................................................................. Rubber Tires ............................................................................................. Large Appliances, Surface Coating .......................................................... Wood Coating ........................................................................................... Synthetic Organic Chemical ..................................................................... Polyester Resin. EPA–450/3–83–006—Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. EPA–450/3–83–008—Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. C. What are the deficiencies? The following deficiencies prevent full approval of YSAQMD’s RACT certification. 1. YSAQMD identified three major non-CTG sources in the District that are not covered by RACT rules or SIP approved permits. Such rules or permits should be submitted to EPA for approval. 2. YSAQMD’s pharmaceutical manufacturing rule may be less stringent than the CTG. Rule 2.35 should be revised and submitted to EPA for approval. 3. On May 14, 2008, YSAQMD amended the solvent cleaning provisions in several rules to address RACT requirements. These rules need to be submitted to, and approved by, EPA. 4. YSAQMD should submit a negative declaration for the Wood Furniture CTG or submit Rule 2.39 for SIP approval. rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the RACT SIP Analysis The TSD describes additional revisions that do not affect EPA’s current action but are recommended to strengthen the RACT analysis. E. Proposed Action and Public Comment As authorized in Section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a disapproval of the submitted YSAQMD RACT SIP analysis. If finalized, sanctions would be imposed unless EPA approves a revised RACT SIP analysis and the required rules that correct the deficiencies discussed above within 18 VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:51 Aug 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 months of the disapproval. These sanctions would be imposed as described in CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.30–52.32. A final disapproval would also trigger the 2 year clock for the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c)(1). We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ B. Paperwork Reduction Act This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 This rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP disapproval actions under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply disapproves for inclusion into the SIP requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP disapproval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 160 / Monday, August 18, 2008 / Proposed Rules rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSALS of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. EPA has determined that the disapproval action proposed 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 Federal action proposes to disapprove a pre-existing analysis 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 Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 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.’’ Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. This rulemaking 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 disapproves a state analysis, and does not alter the relationship or the VerDate Aug<31>2005 16:51 Aug 15, 2008 Jkt 214001 distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking. F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This proposed rule disapproval does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule disapproval. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule disapproval from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it disapproves a state analysis. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions that Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (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 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available and applicable when developing PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 48169 programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS. 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 7, 2008. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E8–19073 Filed 8–15–08; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket No. B–7795] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule; correction. AGENCY: SUMMARY: On July 23, 2008, FEMA published in the Federal Register a proposed rule that contained an erroneous table. This notice provides corrections to that table, to be used in lieu of the information published at 73 FR 42755. The table provided here represents the flooding source, location of referenced elevation, effective and modified elevation, and communities affected for Alameda County, California. Specifically, it addresses Castro Valley Creek (Line J). FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William R. Blanton, Jr., Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–3151 or (e-mail) bill.blanton@dhs.gov. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) publishes proposed determinations of Base (1% annualchance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and modified BFEs for communities SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\18AUP1.SGM 18AUP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 160 (Monday, August 18, 2008)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48166-48169]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19073]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2008-0612; FRL-8705-7]


Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo Solano 
Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the Yolo Solano 
Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning the District's analysis of 
whether its rules meet Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) 
under the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 
We are proposing to disapprove the analysis 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 September 17, 2008.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2008-0612, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 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 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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail. 
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: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at 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 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 analysis?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP analysis?

[[Page 48167]]

    B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the deficiencies?
    D. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the RACT SIP Analysis
    E. 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 disapproval with the date 
that it was adopted and submitted by the California Air Resources 
Board.

                                           Table 1--Submitted Document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                               Document                    Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAQMD....................................  Reasonably Available Control                09/13/06        01/31/07
                                             Technology.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This submittal became complete by operation of law on July 31, 
2007.

B. Are there other versions of this document?

    There is no previous version of this document in the SIP.

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

    VOCs and NOX help produce ground-level ozone and smog, 
which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA 
requires States to submit regulations that control VOC and 
NOX emissions. Sections 172(c)(1) and 182 require areas that 
are designated as moderate or above for ozone non-attainment to adopt 
RACT. The YSAQMD is subject to this requirement as it is designated as 
a serious ozone non-attainment area under the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone 
(40 CFR 81.305). Therefore, the YSAQMD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT 
level controls for sources covered by a Control Technique Guidelines 
(CTG) document and for any major non-CTG source.
    Section IV.G. of EPA's final rule to implement the 8-hour ozone 
NAAQS (70 FR 71612, November 29, 2005) discusses RACT requirements. It 
states in part that where a RACT SIP is required, States implementing 
the 8-hour ozone standard generally 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. The submitted document provides YSAQMD's analysis of 
their RACT rules for the 8-hour NAAQS for ozone. EPA's technical 
support document (TSD) has more information about YSAQMD's RACT 
analysis.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the RACT SIP analysis?

    The rules and guidance documents that we use to evaluate whether 
the analysis fulfills RACT include the following:
    1. Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005).
    2. Letter from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division 
Directors, (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control 
Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers''.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.

B. Does the analysis meet the evaluation criteria?

    YSAQMD's staff report included a table (Table A) listing all CTG 
source categories and matching those CTG categories with the 
corresponding District rule which implements RACT. Given its 
designation as a serious ozone non-attainment area, YSAQMD was also 
required to analyze RACT for all sources that emit or have the 
potential to emit at least 50 tons per year of NOX or VOCs 
(CAA 182(c)). YSAQMD staff searched for all sources that would be 
subject to a CTG and for sources that emitted or have the potential to 
emit at least 25 tpy of VOC or NOX. YSAQMD identified three 
sources, Agrium U.S., Inc, Premier Industries (now Insulfoam), and 
Woodland Biomass Power Ltd., as major sources not subject to a District 
RACT rule.
    YSAQMD points out that under Section 110(k)(4) of the CAA, the 
District can submit a plan revision based on a commitment to adopt 
specific enforceable measures up to one year after the date of approval 
of the plan revision. YSAQMD generally committed to submitting the 
required RACT rules for these sources within one year of approval of 
the plan revision. Under CAA Section 110(k)(4), however, EPA may 
approve a plan revision only where the State commits to adopt 
``specific enforceable measures by a date certain'', not later than one 
year after the approval of the plan revision. YSAQMD's generalized 
commitment to submit RACT rules within a year for the sources and 
source categories that are currently not subject to RACT rules fails to 
provide the ``specific enforceable measures by a date certain'' 
required by CAA Section 110(k)(4). Accordingly, EPA concludes it is not 
appropriate to grant a conditional approval of the District's RACT 
certification.
    The RACT certification provisions which do not meet the evaluation 
criteria are summarized in the next section and discussed further in 
the TSD.
    YSAQMD's staff report also includes a negative declaration listing 
13 CTG categories for which there are no sources in the District 
subject to the CTGs and no District rules covering those categories. 
These categories are provided in Table 2.

                                         Table 2--Negative Declarations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CTG source category                                     CTG reference document
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aerospace..............................................  EPA-453/R-97-004--Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework
                                                          Operations.

[[Page 48168]]

 
Ships..................................................  61 FR 44050 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair.
Metal Coil Container and Closure.......................  EPA-450/2-77-008--Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                                          Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks.
Magnetic Wire..........................................  EPA-450/2-77-033--Surface Coating of Insulation of
                                                          Magnet Wire.
Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants, Equipment Leaks  EPA-450/2-83-007--Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/
                                                          Gasoline Processing Plants.
Refineries.............................................  EPA-450/2-77-025--Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems,
                                                          Wastewater Separators, and Process Unit Turnarounds.
                                                         EPA-450/2-78-036--VOC Leaks from Petroleum Refinery
                                                          Equipment.
Paper and Fabric.......................................  EPA-450/2-77-008--Surface Coating of Cans, Coils,
                                                          Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks.
Dry Cleaning...........................................  EPA-450/3-82-009--Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners.
Rubber Tires...........................................  EPA-450/2-78-030--Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber
                                                          Tires.
Large Appliances, Surface Coating......................  EPA-450/2-77-034--Surface Coating of Large Appliances.
Wood Coating...........................................  EPA-450/2-78-032--Factory Surface of Flat Wood
                                                          Paneling.
Synthetic Organic Chemical.............................  Possible error--YSAQMD listed the polymer/Resin CTG
                                                          under this category.
                                                         EPA-450/3-83-006--Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic
                                                          Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
                                                          Equipment.
Polyester Resin........................................
                                                         EPA-450/3-83-006--Fugitive Emissions from Synthetic
                                                          Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing
                                                          Equipment.
                                                         EPA-450/3-83-008--Manufacture of High-Density
                                                          Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. What are the deficiencies?

    The following deficiencies prevent full approval of YSAQMD's RACT 
certification.
    1. YSAQMD identified three major non-CTG sources in the District 
that are not covered by RACT rules or SIP approved permits. Such rules 
or permits should be submitted to EPA for approval.
    2. YSAQMD's pharmaceutical manufacturing rule may be less stringent 
than the CTG. Rule 2.35 should be revised and submitted to EPA for 
approval.
    3. On May 14, 2008, YSAQMD amended the solvent cleaning provisions 
in several rules to address RACT requirements. These rules need to be 
submitted to, and approved by, EPA.
    4. YSAQMD should submit a negative declaration for the Wood 
Furniture CTG or submit Rule 2.39 for SIP approval.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the RACT SIP Analysis

    The TSD describes additional revisions that do not affect EPA's 
current action but are recommended to strengthen the RACT analysis.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in Section 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a 
disapproval of the submitted YSAQMD RACT SIP analysis. If finalized, 
sanctions would be imposed unless EPA approves a revised RACT SIP 
analysis and the required rules that correct the deficiencies discussed 
above within 18 months of the disapproval. These sanctions would be 
imposed as described in CAA section 179 and 40 CFR 52.30-52.32. A final 
disapproval would also trigger the 2 year clock for the federal 
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c)(1).
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval 
for the next 30 days.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review.''

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking does not impose an information collection burden 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et 
seq. 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.
    This rulemaking will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP disapproval actions under section 
110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply disapproves for inclusion into the SIP 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP disapproval does not create any new requirements, I certify 
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives

[[Page 48169]]

of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 
requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small 
governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the disapproval action proposed 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 Federal action proposes to 
disapprove a pre-existing analysis 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

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rulemaking 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 disapproves a state analysis, and does not alter the 
relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities 
established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 
of the Executive Order do not apply to this rulemaking.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule 
disapproval does not have tribal implications, as specified in 
Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on 
tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government 
and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 
13175 does not apply to this rule disapproval.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
disapproval from tribal officials.

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

    EPA interprets Executive Order 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 Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This 
rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it 
disapproves a state analysis.

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

    This rulemaking is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (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 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

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 7, 2008.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E8-19073 Filed 8-15-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P