Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 35327-35329 [2012-14421]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
line. EPA has determined that this SIP
revision complies with the Clean Air
Act and EPA regulations and is
consistent with EPA policies. This
action is being taken under section 110
of the Act.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section
(6PD–R), Environmental Protection
Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200,
Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments
may also be submitted electronically of
through hand delivery/courier by
following the detailed instructions in
the Addresses section of the direct final
rule located in the rules section of this
Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section (6PD–
R), Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite
1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733,
telephone (214) 665–7289; fax number
(214) 665–6762; email address
mohr.ashley@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
are received in response to this action,
no further activity is contemplated. If
EPA receives relevant adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be
withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a
subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a
second comment period. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action
should do so at this time. 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.
For additional information, see the
direct final rule which is located in the
rules section of this Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Carbon monoxide,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Lead,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:47 Jun 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 30, 2012.
Samuel Coleman,
Acting Regional Administrator, EPA
Region 6.
[FR Doc. 2012–14156 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0546; FRL–9685–8]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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 the
manufacture of polystyrene,
polyethylene, and polypropylene
products. We are approving a local rule
that regulates these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act (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 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2011–0546, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: 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)
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35327
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 email.
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 email 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 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
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:
Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4118, Kay.Rynda@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 revision?
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further
Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the date that it was
adopted by the local air agency and
submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM
13JNP1
35328
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule No.
SJVUAPCD .......
Rule title
4682
Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing .....
On March 13, 2012, EPA determined
that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule
4682 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 4682 into the SIP on June 13, 1995
(60 FR 31086). The SJVUAPCD adopted
revisions to the SIP-approved version on
September 20, 2007 and CARB
submitted them to us on March 7, 2008.
On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we
proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of the 2007 version of
SJVUAPCD Rule 4682. However, the
2011 version of the rule superseded the
2007 version, and we do not intend to
finalize action on the 2007 version.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted
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 4682 was designed to
reduce emissions of VOCs from the
manufacturing, processing and storage
of products composed of polystyrene,
polyethylene, and polypropylene. EPA’s
technical support document (TSD) has
more information about this rule.
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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 SJVUAPCD
regulates an ozone nonattainment area
(see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4682 must
fulfill RACT.
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:47 Jun 12, 2012
Adopted
Jkt 226001
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
3. ‘‘Averaging Times for Compliance
With VOC Emission Limits—SIP
Revision Policy,’’ memorandum from
John R. O’Connor, OAQPS, dated
January 20, 1984.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we
proposed a limited approval and limited
disapproval of a previous version of
SJVUAPCD Rule 4682. We determined
that the rule largely fulfills the relevant
criteria summarized above. The rule
improves the SIP by clarifying language,
adding definitions, and adding control
requirements. The rule also improves
the SIP by adding requirements for
compliance plans, record keeping, and
testing. The rule is generally clear and
contains appropriate monitoring,
reporting, and recordkeeping
requirements to ensure that emission
limits are adequately enforceable. We
found our approval of the submittal
would comply with CAA section 110(l),
because the proposed SIP revision
would not interfere with the on-going
process for ensuring that requirements
for RFP 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. While we found
the rule largely fulfilled relevant Clean
Air Act 110 and Part D requirements, we
identified one deficiency.
The rule established an emission limit
of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds
of total material processed, as averaged
on a monthly basis. EPA generally
cannot approve compliance periods
exceeding 24 hours unless specific
criteria are met, including a clear
explanation of why the application of
RACT is not economically or technically
feasible on a daily basis. The District
revised the rule and added supporting
documentation to address the
deficiency.
The District identified two major
processes covered by Rule 4682,
extrusion foam and expanded
polystyrene molding production, and
split the rule requirements by process
type. Both processes are still subject to
an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC
per 100 pounds of total material
processed, calculated over a monthly
period. Expandable polystyrene
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12/15/2011
Submitted
02/23/2012
molding facilities, however, are now
subject to an additional emission limit
of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds
of total material processed, calculated
daily. Based on the evaluation of the
revision, we propose that Rule 4682 is
consistent with RACT and the criteria
for approving averaging times exceeding
24 hours. The TSD has detailed
information on our evaluation.
On January 10, 2012, EPA partially
approved and partially disapproved the
RACT SIP submitted by California on
June 18, 2009 for the SJV extreme ozone
nonattainment area (2009 RACT SIP),
based in part on our conclusion that the
State had not fully satisfied CAA section
182 RACT requirements for polystyrene
manufacturing operations. See 77 FR
1417, 1425 (January 10, 2012). Final
approval of Rule 4682 would satisfy
California’s obligation to implement
RACT under CAA section 182 for this
source category for the 1-hour ozone
and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and
thereby terminate all CAA sanction and
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
implications of our RACT SIP action as
it relates to polystyrene manufacturing.
C. EPA Recommendations to Further
Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule
revisions that we recommend for the
next time the local agency modifies the
rule but are not currently the basis for
rule disapproval.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted
rule fulfills all relevant requirements,
we are proposing to fully approve it 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 this rule
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.
E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM
13JNP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
13:47 Jun 12, 2012
Jkt 226001
relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 25, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012–14421 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0359; FRL–9685–9]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
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 crude
oil production sumps and refinery
wastewater separators. 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
July 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
OAR–2012–0359, by one of the
following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
2. Email: 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
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
35329
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 email.
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 email 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 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
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:
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
rules and 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 amended by the local air agency
and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
E:\FR\FM\13JNP1.SGM
13JNP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35327-35329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14421]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0546; FRL-9685-8]
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 the manufacture of
polystyrene, polyethylene, and polypropylene products. We are approving
a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air
Act (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 13, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0546, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
2. Email: 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 email.
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 email
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 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 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: Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118, Kay.Rynda@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 revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
D. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
[[Page 35328]]
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD.......................... 4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene, 12/15/2011 02/23/2012
and Polypropylene Products
Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 13, 2012, EPA determined that the submittal for SJVUAPCD
Rule 4682 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 4682 into the SIP on June
13, 1995 (60 FR 31086). The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 20, 2007 and CARB submitted them to us on
March 7, 2008. On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we proposed a limited
approval and limited disapproval of the 2007 version of SJVUAPCD Rule
4682. However, the 2011 version of the rule superseded the 2007
version, and we do not intend to finalize action on the 2007 version.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted 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 4682 was
designed to reduce emissions of VOCs from the manufacturing, processing
and storage of products composed of polystyrene, polyethylene, and
polypropylene. 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 SJVUAPCD regulates an
ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4682 must
fulfill RACT.
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. ``Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits--SIP
Revision Policy,'' memorandum from John R. O'Connor, OAQPS, dated
January 20, 1984.
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of a previous version of SJVUAPCD Rule 4682. We
determined that the rule largely fulfills the relevant criteria
summarized above. The rule improves the SIP by clarifying language,
adding definitions, and adding control requirements. The rule also
improves the SIP by adding requirements for compliance plans, record
keeping, and testing. The rule is generally clear and contains
appropriate monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to
ensure that emission limits are adequately enforceable. We found our
approval of the submittal would comply with CAA section 110(l), because
the proposed SIP revision would not interfere with the on-going process
for ensuring that requirements for RFP 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.
While we found the rule largely fulfilled relevant Clean Air Act 110
and Part D requirements, we identified one deficiency.
The rule established an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100
pounds of total material processed, as averaged on a monthly basis. EPA
generally cannot approve compliance periods exceeding 24 hours unless
specific criteria are met, including a clear explanation of why the
application of RACT is not economically or technically feasible on a
daily basis. The District revised the rule and added supporting
documentation to address the deficiency.
The District identified two major processes covered by Rule 4682,
extrusion foam and expanded polystyrene molding production, and split
the rule requirements by process type. Both processes are still subject
to an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total
material processed, calculated over a monthly period. Expandable
polystyrene molding facilities, however, are now subject to an
additional emission limit of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds of total
material processed, calculated daily. Based on the evaluation of the
revision, we propose that Rule 4682 is consistent with RACT and the
criteria for approving averaging times exceeding 24 hours. The TSD has
detailed information on our evaluation.
On January 10, 2012, EPA partially approved and partially
disapproved the RACT SIP submitted by California on June 18, 2009 for
the SJV extreme ozone nonattainment area (2009 RACT SIP), based in part
on our conclusion that the State had not fully satisfied CAA section
182 RACT requirements for polystyrene manufacturing operations. See 77
FR 1417, 1425 (January 10, 2012). Final approval of Rule 4682 would
satisfy California's obligation to implement RACT under CAA section 182
for this source category for the 1-hour ozone and 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS and thereby terminate all CAA sanction and Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP) implications of our RACT SIP action as it relates to
polystyrene manufacturing.
C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that we recommend for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule but are not currently
the basis for rule disapproval.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it 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 this rule 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.
[[Page 35329]]
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: May 25, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-14421 Filed 6-12-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
