Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 46044-46047 [E9-21550]

Download as PDF 46044 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules (5) All persons and vessels within a security zone described in this section must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port, Port Arthur, designated on-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel or other designated representatives. On-scene U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel include commissioned, warrant, and petty officers of the U.S. Coast Guard. Designated representatives include federal, state, local and municipal law enforcement agencies. (c) Informational broadcasts. The Captain of the Port, Port Arthur will inform the public when moving security zones have been established around vessels via Broadcast Notice to Mariners. Dated: June 15, 2009. J.J. Plunkett, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Port Arthur. [FR Doc. E9–21580 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910–15–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION 39 CFR Part 3060 [Docket No. RM2009–9; Order No. 287] Competitive Postal Products Postal Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. AGENCY: SUMMARY: This document announces a proposed rulemaking in response to a recent Postal Service filing of a proposed methodology for the allocation of assets and liabilities in theoretical competitive enterprise. DATES: Submit comments on or before October 23, 2009. Submit reply comments on or before November 23, 2009. Submit comments electronically via the Commission’s electronic Filing Online system at https://www.prc.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820 or stephen.sharfman@prc.gov. ADDRESSES: Regulatory History, 73 FR 79256 (December 24, 2008). In PRC Order No. 151, which established financial accounting practices and tax rules for competitive products, the Commission directed the Postal Service to develop the assets and liabilities of the theoretical competitive products enterprise by identifying all asset and liability accounts within its Chart of Accounts used solely for the mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:24 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 provision of (a) competitive products or (b) market dominant products, and for those not identified with either, to submit for Commission approval a proposed methodology detailing how each asset and liability account identified in the Chart of Accounts shall be allocated to the theoretical competitive products enterprise.1 See 39 CFR 3060.12 and 3060.13; see also Order No. 151 at 17–18. In satisfaction of that requirement, on July 23, 2009, the Postal Service filed a proposed methodology for the allocation of assets and liabilities to the theoretical competitive enterprise.2 The Postal Service avers that, with ‘‘few exceptions,’’ the proposed methodology tracks that used by the Commission in PRC–LR–1 in Docket No. RM2008–5. Id. at 1–2. The differences concern the following entries: 1. Asset: Supplies, Advances, and Prepayments—the Postal Service allocation is based on total revenues; the Commission did not propose an allocation; 2. Liability: Payables and Accrued Expenses—the Postal Service allocation is based on total revenues; the Commission did not propose an allocation; 3. Liability: Customer Deposit Accounts—the Postal Service allocation is based on total revenues; the Commission allocation is limited to a specific account, Expedited Mail Advance Deposit; 4. Liability: Outstanding Postal Money Orders—the Postal Service allocation is based on actual Outstanding International Money Orders; the Commission did not propose an allocation; and 5. Liability: Deferred Gains on Sales of Property—the Postal Service did not propose an allocation; the Commission allocation is based on Building Depreciation Expenses. The Notice, which is available on the Commission’s Web site, https:// www.prc.gov, includes a spreadsheet showing the Commission’s and the Postal Service’s proposed allocation procedures. The Notice also provides rationales for the Postal Service’s proposals. Interested persons are invited to comment on the Postal Service’s proposed methodology and may propose alternative methodologies. 1 See Docket No. RM2008–5, PRC Order No. 151, Order Establishing Tax Rules and Accounting Practices for Competitive Products, December 18, 2009 (Order No. 151). 2 Notice of United States Postal Service Regarding Proposed Methodology for the Allocation of Assets and Liabilities to Competitive Products, July 23, 2009 (Notice). PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 Comments are due no later than 45 days after publication of this order in the Federal Register. Reply comments are due no later than 75 days after publication of this order in the Federal Register. The Commission designates Patricia A. Gallagher to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding. It is ordered: 1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2009–9 to consider the matters related to the allocation of assets and liabilities to the theoretical competitive products enterprise. 2. Interested persons may submit initial comments within 45 days of publication of this order in the Federal Register. 3. Interested persons may submit reply comments within 75 days of publication of this Order in the Federal Register. 4. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, Patricia A. Gallagher is designated to serve as the Public Representative representing the interests of the general public in this proceeding. 5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Notice in the Federal Register. Authority: 39 U.S.C. 503, 2011, 3633, 3634. Issued: August 24, 2009. By the Commission. Judith M. Grady, Acting Secretary. [FR Doc. E9–21476 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7710–FW–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0573; FRL–8953–6] Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revisions, South Coast Air Quality Management District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polymeric foam manufacturing operations. We are proposing action on a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM 08SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action. DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 8, 2009. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2009–0573, by one of the following methods: 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send email directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at https://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. 46045 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of this rule? C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? C. What are the rule deficiencies? D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule E. Proposed action and public comment III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. The State’s Submittal A. What rule did the State submit? Table 1 lists the rule proposed for disapproval with the date that it was adopted and submitted. TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE Local agency SCAQMD ............................. Rule No. Rule title 1175 Control of Emissions from the Manufacturing of Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products. On April 17, 2008, we determined that the rule submittal in Table 1 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. operations with an additional compliance option. EPA’s technical support document (TSD) has more information about this rule. B. Are there other versions of this rule? II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action We approved a previous version of Rule 1175 into the SIP on August 25, 1994. Please see 57 FR 43751. There have been no subsequent and intervening submittals of Rule 1175. mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 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. Rule 1175 was designed to reduce VOCs, Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), and methylene cloride emissions from expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam molders, direct injection polystyrene foam extrusion, polyurethane, isocyanurate and phenolic foam manufacturing operations. The District amended the Rule in order to provide expandable polystyrene molding VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:24 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 Adopted A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates an area classified as severe nonattainment for ozone (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 1175 must fulfill RACT. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate enforceability and RACT requirements include the following: 1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 09/07/07 Submitted 03/07/08 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook). 3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook). 4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992). B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria? Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD. C. What are the rule deficiencies? These provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and part D of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision. We propose to disapprove the SIP revision based on the following deficiencies: 1. The rule must require demonstration, through source testing approved in writing by the Executive E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM 08SEP1 46046 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules Officer, that the systems and techniques in place at a facility achieve 93% collection and reduction of emissions for sources complying with paragraph (c)(4)(B)(iii). 2. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and parameters needed to achieve 93% control to comply with paragraph (c)(4)(B)(iii) must be clearly defined and enforceable through a federally enforceable permit such as a Title V operating permit. Rule 1175 should also be revised where possible to identify these parameters. 3. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and parameters needed to achieve 90% collection and 95% destruction to comply with paragraphs (c)(4)(B)(i) and (ii) must be clearly defined and enforceable through a federally enforceable permit such as a Title V operating permit. Rule 1175 should also be revised where possible to identify these parameters. D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect EPA’s current action but are recommended for the next time the local agency modifies the rules. E. Proposed Action and Public Comment As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a disapproval of the submitted SCAQMD Rule 1175. If finalized, this action would retain the existing SIP rule in the SIP. There are no sanction or FIP implications with this action pursuant to Clean Air Act Section 179, as this is not a required Clean Air Act submittal. We will accept comments from the public on the proposed disapproval for the next 30 days. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 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 action 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 VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:24 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 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 rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new requirements but simply disapprove requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval 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 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 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. PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 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 rule 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 rule implementing a federal standard, 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 rule. 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 does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM 08SEP1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 172 / Tuesday, September 8, 2009 / Proposed Rules 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. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 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 rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it disapproves a state rule implementing a Federal standard. H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use This rule 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. mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with PROPOSALS 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. VerDate Nov<24>2008 17:24 Sep 04, 2009 Jkt 217001 46047 Dated: August 21, 2009. Laura Yoshii, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E9–21550 Filed 9–4–09; 8:45 am] Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail) Kevin.Long@dhs.gov. BILLING CODE 6560–50–P SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Federal Emergency Management Agency 44 CFR Part 67 [Docket ID FEMA–2008–0020; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA–B–1066] Proposed Flood Elevation Determinations AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: Comments are requested on the proposed Base (1% annual-chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs) and proposed BFE modifications for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the proposed regulatory flood elevations for the reach described by the downstream and upstream locations in the table below. The BFEs and modified BFEs are a part of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). In addition, these elevations, once finalized, will be used by insurance agents, and others to calculate appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings and the contents in those buildings. DATES: Comments are to be submitted on or before December 7, 2009. ADDRESSES: The corresponding preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the proposed BFEs for each community is available for inspection at the community’s map repository. The respective addresses are listed in the table below. You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA–B–1066, to Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street, SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646–2820, or (e-mail) Kevin.Long@dhs.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin C. Long, Acting Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Mitigation Directorate, Federal PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposes to make determinations of BFEs and modified BFEs for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a). These proposed BFEs and modified BFEs, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These proposed elevations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these buildings. Comments on any aspect of the Flood Insurance Study and FIRM, other than the proposed BFEs, will be considered. A letter acknowledging receipt of any comments will not be sent. National Environmental Policy Act. This proposed rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR part 10, Environmental Consideration. An environmental impact assessment has not been prepared. Regulatory Flexibility Act. As flood elevation determinations are not within the scope of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action under the criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended. Executive Order 13132, Federalism. This proposed rule involves no policies that have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This proposed rule meets the applicable standards of Executive Order 12988. List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 67 Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. E:\FR\FM\08SEP1.SGM 08SEP1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46044-46047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21550]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0573; FRL-8953-6]


Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revisions, South Coast 
Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning volatile organic compound 
(VOC) emissions from polymeric foam manufacturing operations. We are 
proposing action on a local rule that regulates these emission sources 
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are 
taking

[[Page 46045]]

comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 8, 2009.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0573, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. https://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 https://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: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 
947-4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule
    E. Proposed action and public comment
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule proposed for disapproval with the date that 
it was adopted and submitted.

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD..................................         1175  Control of Emissions from the       09/07/07     03/07/08
                                                        Manufacturing of Polymeric
                                                        Cellular (Foam) Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 17, 2008, we determined that the rule submittal in Table 1 
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must 
be met before formal EPA review.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved a previous version of Rule 1175 into the SIP on August 
25, 1994. Please see 57 FR 43751. There have been no subsequent and 
intervening submittals of Rule 1175.

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. Rule 1175 was 
designed to reduce VOCs, Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), and methylene 
cloride emissions from expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam molders, direct 
injection polystyrene foam extrusion, polyurethane, isocyanurate and 
phenolic foam manufacturing operations. The District amended the Rule 
in order to provide expandable polystyrene molding operations with an 
additional compliance option.
    EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about 
this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines 
(CTG) document as well as each major source in nonattainment areas (see 
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The SCAQMD regulates an 
area classified as severe nonattainment for ozone (see 40 CFR part 81), 
so Rule 1175 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements 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. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are 
summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

    These provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and 
part D of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision. We 
propose to disapprove the SIP revision based on the following 
deficiencies:
    1. The rule must require demonstration, through source testing 
approved in writing by the Executive

[[Page 46046]]

Officer, that the systems and techniques in place at a facility achieve 
93% collection and reduction of emissions for sources complying with 
paragraph (c)(4)(B)(iii).
    2. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and 
parameters needed to achieve 93% control to comply with paragraph 
(c)(4)(B)(iii) must be clearly defined and enforceable through a 
federally enforceable permit such as a Title V operating permit. Rule 
1175 should also be revised where possible to identify these 
parameters.
    3. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and 
parameters needed to achieve 90% collection and 95% destruction to 
comply with paragraphs (c)(4)(B)(i) and (ii) must be clearly defined 
and enforceable through a federally enforceable permit such as a Title 
V operating permit. Rule 1175 should also be revised where possible to 
identify these parameters.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a 
disapproval of the submitted SCAQMD Rule 1175. If finalized, this 
action would retain the existing SIP rule in the SIP. There are no 
sanction or FIP implications with this action pursuant to Clean Air Act 
Section 179, as this is not a required Clean Air Act submittal.
    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 action 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 rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP disapprovals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply disapprove requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval 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 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 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

    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 rule 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 rule implementing a federal standard, 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 
rule.

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 does not 
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It 
will not

[[Page 46047]]

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.
    EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule 
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 
rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it disapproves a 
state rule implementing a Federal standard.

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

    This rule 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, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 21, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-21550 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.