Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 56706-56707 [2011-23550]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 178 (Wednesday, September 14, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56706-56707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23550]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0735; FRL-9464-2]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from confined animal 
facilities (CAFs) and biosolids, animal manure, and poultry litter 
operations. We are approving 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 October 14, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0735, 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: 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: Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX, 
(415) 972-3368, chilingaryan.sona@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 and rule revision?
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 No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD................................         4570  Confined Animal Facilities.....     10/21/10       4/5/11
SJVUAPCD................................         4565  Biosolids, Animal Manure, and        3/15/07      8/24/07
                                                        Poultry Litter Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 17, 2007, EPA determined that the submittal for 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4565 met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 
appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. On May 6, 2011, 
EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4570 met the 
completeness criteria.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    There are no previous versions of Rule 4565. On January 14, 2010, 
EPA finalized a limited approval of an earlier version of Rule 4570 
into the SIP. Simultaneously, EPA finalized a limited disapproval of 
the rule for exempting major source poultry operations and for an 
inadequate RACT analysis for swine and poultry (75 FR 2079). The 
SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to Rule 4570 on October 21, 2010, partly to 
address these issues, and we are proposing action on that version of 
the rule.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule and rule revision?

    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 4570 requires 
management practices to reduce VOCs from dairies, beef feedlots, 
poultry houses, and other confined animal facilities. Rule 4565 
requires management practices to reduce VOC emissions from land-
application of

[[Page 56707]]

biosolids and disposal at landfills and small and medium sized 
composting/co-composting operations. Rule 4565 also requires add-on 
controls at large composting/co-composting operations. 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 
sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), must not interfere with any applicable 
requirements concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
(RFP), and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) 
and 193). Section 172(c)(1) of the Act also requires implementation of 
all reasonably available control measures (RACM) as expeditiously as 
practicable in nonattainment areas. The SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone 
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 4565 and 4570 must 
fulfill RACT. Additionally, the RACM requirement in CAA section 
172(c)(1) applies to this area. In this proposal, we are only 
evaluating RACT. In a separate rulemaking, EPA will take action on the 
State's RACM demonstrations for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS based on an 
evaluation of the control measures submitted as a whole and their 
overall potential to advance the applicable attainment date in the San 
Joaquin Valley. See 40 CFR 51.912(d) and 51.1010.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT and RACM 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. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    4. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR 
13498, April 16, 1992.
    5. ``Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' 70 FR 71612, Nov. 29, 2005.
    6. 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 consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The 
revisions to Rule 4570 address the deficiencies we noted in our January 
14, 2010 limited disapproval action, and include lowering the rule 
applicability threshold for poultry facilities to include all major 
sources and an adequate RACT analysis for swine and poultry facilities. 
The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommend for 
the next time the local agency modifies the rules but are not currently 
the basis for rule disapproval.

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. If finalized as proposed, approval of Rule 4570 would 
terminate all CAA sanction and FIP implications associated with EPA's 
2010 limited disapproval of a previous version of this rule.

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 proposed action merely proposes to approve State law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed 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 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 proposed action 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: August 31, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-23550 Filed 9-13-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P