Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 28467-28468 [E9-14020]
Download as PDF
28467
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0350; FRL–8918–3]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District portion of the
California State Implementation Plan
(SIP). These revisions concern volatile
organic compound (VOC) emissions
from coating of metal parts, large
appliances, metal furniture, motor
vehicles, mobile equipment, cans, coils,
and organic solvent cleaning, storage,
and disposal related to such operations.
We are approving three local rules that
regulate these emission sources under
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act). We are taking
comments on this proposal and plan to
follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by
July 16, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number [EPA–R09–
OAR–2009–0350], 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:
Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA recommendations to further
improve the rules.
D. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by
this proposal with the dates that they
were adopted by the local air agency
and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board.
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule #
SJVAPCD .........
SJVAPCD .........
SJVAPCD .........
Rule title
4603
4604
4612
Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products .............................................
Can and Coil Coating Operations ................................................................
Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations ..........................
On April 20, 2009 and April 17, 2008,
these rule submittals were found to
meet the completeness criteria in 40
CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must
be met before formal EPA review.
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
We approved versions of Rules 4603
and 4604 into the SIP on June 25, 2002
and May 19, 2002. Rule 4612 is
replacing Rule 4602 which was
approved into the SIP on June 26, 2002.
The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution
Control District adopted revisions to the
SIP-approved version of Rule 4603 on
May 18, 2006, September 20, 2007, and
October 16, 2008 and CARB submitted
them to us on October 5, 2006, March
7, 2008, and December 23, 2008. While
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jun 15, 2009
Adopted
Jkt 217001
we can act on only the most recently
submitted version, we have reviewed
materials provided with previous
submittals. No other versions of Rule
4604 and 4602/4612 have been adopted
by the district after 2002.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
rule revisions?
VOCs 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
emissions. The rules control VOC
emissions by limiting VOC content in
the coatings used for metal parts, large
appliances, metal furniture, motor
vehicles, mobile equipment, cans, and
coils. In addition, the rules also limit
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submitted
10/16/08
09/20/07
09/20/07
12/23/08
03/07/08
03/07/08
emission of VOCs by regulating organic
solvent cleaning, storage, and disposal
relating to the coating operations. The
most significant changes in the rules are
reductions of the VOC limits on organic
solvents to 25 grams of VOC per liter
solvent. EPA’s technical support
documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be
enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available
Control Technology (RACT) for each
category of sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document
as well as each major source in
nonattainment areas (see section
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with PROPOSALS
28468
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 114 / Tuesday, June 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules
182(a)(2)), and must not relax existing
requirements (see sections 110(l) and
193). The San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District regulates an
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR
part 81), so Rules 4603, 4604, and 4612
must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that
we use to help evaluate specific
enforceability and RACT requirements
consistently include the following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987
ozone and carbon monoxide policy that
concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November
24, 1987.
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Miscellaneous Metal and Plastic Parts
Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–08–003,
September 2008.
5. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Large Appliance Coatings,’’ EPA–453/
R–07–004, September 2007.
6. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Metal Furniture Coatings,’’ EPA–453/R–
07–005, September 2007.
7. ‘‘Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources Volume II: Surface Coating of
Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks,’’
EPA–450/2–77–008, May 1977.
8. ‘‘Reasonably Available Control
Technology (RACT) Demonstration for
Ozone State Implementation Plans
(SIP)’’ SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009.
9. ‘‘Suggested Control Measure for
Automotive Coatings,’’ CARB, October
2005.
10. Portions of the proposed post1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy
that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044,
November 24, 1987.
11. ‘‘State Implementation Plans,
General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean
Air Amendments of 1990’’ 57 FR 13498,
April 16, 1992.
12. ‘‘Preamble, Final Rule to
Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard’’ 70 FR
71612; Nov. 29, 2005.
13. Letter from William T. Hartnett to
Regional Air Division Directors, ‘‘RACT
Qs & As—Reasonable Available Control
Technology (RACT) Questions and
Answers,’’ May 18, 2006.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe these rules are generally
consistent with the relevant policy and
VerDate Nov<24>2008
14:59 Jun 15, 2009
Jkt 217001
guidance regarding enforceability,
RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our
evaluation.
C. EPA recommendations to further
improve the rule
The TSDs describe additional rule
revisions that do not affect EPA’s
current action but are recommended for
the next time the local agency modifies
the rule.
D. Public comment and final action
Because EPA believes the submitted
rules fulfill all relevant requirements,
we are proposing to fully approve them
as described in section 110(k)(3) of the
Act. We will accept comments from the
public on this proposal for the next 30
days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period,
we intend to publish a final approval
action that will incorporate these rules
into the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, EPA’s role is to approve
state choices, provided that they meet
the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993);
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have
tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000), because the SIP is
not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that
it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt
tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 2, 2009.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9–14020 Filed 6–15–09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 191 and 194
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2009–0330; FRL–8916–5]
Intent To Evaluate Whether the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant Continues To
Comply With the Disposal Regulations
and Compliance Criteria
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability; official
opening of public comment period.
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) intends to evaluate and
recertify whether or not the Waste
Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) continues to
comply with EPA’s environmental
radiation protection standards for the
disposal of radioactive waste. Pursuant
to the 1992 WIPP Land Withdrawal Act
(LWA), as amended, the U.S.
E:\FR\FM\16JNP1.SGM
16JNP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 114 (Tuesday, June 16, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 28467-28468]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-14020]
[[Page 28467]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0350; FRL-8918-3]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Air Pollution Control District portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from coating of metal parts, large appliances,
metal furniture, motor vehicles, mobile equipment, cans, coils, and
organic solvent cleaning, storage, and disposal related to such
operations. We are approving three local rules that regulate these
emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a
final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by July 16, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0350], 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: Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4126, Law.Nicole@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
D. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates
that they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD........................... 4603 Surface Coating of Metal 10/16/08 12/23/08
Parts and Products.
SJVAPCD........................... 4604 Can and Coil Coating 09/20/07 03/07/08
Operations.
SJVAPCD........................... 4612 Motor Vehicle and Mobile 09/20/07 03/07/08
Equipment Coating
Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2009 and April 17, 2008, these rule submittals were
found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
We approved versions of Rules 4603 and 4604 into the SIP on June
25, 2002 and May 19, 2002. Rule 4612 is replacing Rule 4602 which was
approved into the SIP on June 26, 2002. The San Joaquin Valley Air
Pollution Control District adopted revisions to the SIP-approved
version of Rule 4603 on May 18, 2006, September 20, 2007, and October
16, 2008 and CARB submitted them to us on October 5, 2006, March 7,
2008, and December 23, 2008. While we can act on only the most recently
submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous
submittals. No other versions of Rule 4604 and 4602/4612 have been
adopted by the district after 2002.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
VOCs 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 emissions. The rules control VOC
emissions by limiting VOC content in the coatings used for metal parts,
large appliances, metal furniture, motor vehicles, mobile equipment,
cans, and coils. In addition, the rules also limit emission of VOCs by
regulating organic solvent cleaning, storage, and disposal relating to
the coating operations. The most significant changes in the rules are
reductions of the VOC limits on organic solvents to 25 grams of VOC per
liter solvent. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see
section
[[Page 28468]]
182(a)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections
110(l) and 193). The San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules
4603, 4604, and 4612 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Miscellaneous Metal and
Plastic Parts Coatings,'' EPA-453/R-08-003, September 2008.
5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Large Appliance Coatings,''
EPA-453/R-07-004, September 2007.
6. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Metal Furniture Coatings,''
EPA-453/R-07-005, September 2007.
7. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions From Existing Stationary
Sources Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks,'' EPA-450/2-77-008, May 1977.
8. ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration
for Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIP)'' SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009.
9. ``Suggested Control Measure for Automotive Coatings,'' CARB,
October 2005.
10. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
11. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990'' 57 FR
13498, April 16, 1992.
12. ``Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' 70 FR 71612; Nov. 29, 2005.
13. Letter from William T. Hartnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonable Available Control Technology
(RACT) Questions and Answers,'' May 18, 2006.
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe these rules are generally consistent with the relevant
policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP
relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the rule.
D. Public comment and final action
Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate these rules into the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the Clean Air Act; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 2, 2009.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-14020 Filed 6-15-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P