Revision to the California State Implementation Plan; South Coast Air Quality Management District, 47074-47076 [2011-19390]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 150 (Thursday, August 4, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47074-47076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-19390]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0462; FRL-9437-6]


Revision to the California State Implementation Plan; South Coast 
Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective on October 3, 2011 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 6, 2011. If 
we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0462, 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. Electronic files should avoid the use of special characters, 
any form of encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
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 at https://www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps), and some may not be 
publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard 
copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business 
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4124, wang.mae@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. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

[[Page 47075]]

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

    We are approving South Coast Air Quality Management District 
(SCAQMD) Rule 1175, adopted on November 5, 2010, and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) on April 5, 2011. On May 6, 2011, 
EPA determined that the submittal for Rule 1175 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 an earlier version of Rule 1175 into the SIP on August 
25, 1994 (see 59 FR 43751). The SCAQMD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 7, 2007, and CARB submitted them to us on 
March 7, 2008. We disapproved this version on May 10, 2010 (see 75 FR 
25775).

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?

    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 control VOC emissions from the manufacturing, processing, 
and storage of polymeric foam products. The rule essentially prohibits 
the use of chlorofluorocarbons, VOC, and methylene chloride in 
polymeric cellular foam product operations except for expandable 
polystyrene molding and extrudable polystyrene foam operations. 
Expandable polystyrene molding and extrudable polystyrene foam 
operations are required to demonstrate that emissions do not exceed 2.4 
pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of raw materials processed, or to install 
an approved emission control system. 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 
CAA), 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)), must not interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or 
any other applicable requirement of the CAA (see section 110(l) of the 
CAA), and must not modify, in a nonattainment area, any SIP-approved 
control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (see section 193 
of the CAA). The SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 
CFR part 81), so Rule 1175 must fulfill RACT as well as CAA section 
110(l) requirements.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the 
following:
    1. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
    2. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    3. ``Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing'' 
(EPA-450/3-90-020, September 1990).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and CAA section 110(l). The 
SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going process for ensuring 
that requirements for reasonable further progress and attainment of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards are met, and the submitted SIP 
revision is at least as stringent as the rule previously approved into 
the SIP.
    The previous version of Rule 1175, amended on September 7, 2007, 
and submitted to EPA on March 7, 2008, was disapproved on May 10, 2010 
(75 FR 25775). As discussed in more detail in EPA's TSD associated with 
that action, EPA disapproved the earlier version because it did not 
contain adequate provisions to ensure rule enforceability in the 
following areas:
    (1) For sources choosing to comply with the new option for expanded 
polystyrene block molding operations, the rule needed to require 
demonstration through source testing that the 93% collection and 
reduction of emissions is being achieved.
    (2) For sources choosing to comply with the new option for expanded 
polystyrene block molding operations, the rule needed to clarify and 
identify the operational techniques and parameters needed to achieve 
93% control, and include those techniques and parameters in a federally 
enforceable permit.
    (3) For sources with an emission control system designed to meet 
the 90% collection and 95% destruction requirements, the rule needed to 
clarify and identify the operational techniques and parameters needed 
for compliance and include those techniques and parameters in a 
federally enforceable permit.
    The currently submitted version, amended on November 5, 2010, 
contains added language to require that techniques and parameters 
related to operation of emission control systems be incorporated in a 
federally enforceable permit. Source testing requirements were also 
added. These revisions address the previously identified deficiencies. 
Additional rule revisions address recommendations to improve the 
clarity of the rule. We find that the currently submitted version of 
Rule 1175 fulfills the relevant criteria summarized earlier. The TSD 
has more information on our evaluation.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we 
receive adverse comments by September 6, 2011, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on October 3, 2011. This will incorporate the 
rule into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 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 CAA. 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:

[[Page 47076]]

     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 CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, 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.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by October 3, 2011. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. Parties with objections to this direct final rule are 
encouraged to file a comment in response to the parallel notice of 
proposed rulemaking for this action published in the Proposed Rules 
section of today's Federal Register, rather than file an immediate 
petition for judicial review of this direct final rule, so that EPA can 
withdraw this direct final rule and address the comment in the proposed 
rulemaking. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 21, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
    Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220, is amended by adding paragraph (c)(388)(i)(A)(3) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (388) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Rule 1175, ``Control of Emissions from the Manufacture of 
Polymeric Cellular (Foam) Products,'' amended November 5, 2010.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2011-19390 Filed 8-3-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P