Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 62687-62689 [2020-20848]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2020–0364; FRL–10014–
67–Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; California; San
Diego Air Pollution Control District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
revision to the San Diego Air Pollution
Control District (SDAPCD or ‘‘District’’)
portion of the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). This
revision concerns the regulation of
emissions of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs) from large coating
operations for wood products. We are
proposing to approve the rescission of a
local rule from the California SIP that is
no longer needed to regulate 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: Comments must be received on
or before November 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R09–
OAR–2020–0364 at https://
www.regulations.gov. For comments
submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the
SUMMARY:
online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments
cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish
any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information the disclosure of
which is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
For the full EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets. If you need
assistance in a language other than
English, or if you are a person with
disabilities who needs a reasonable
accommodation at no cost to you, please
contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75
62687
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA
94105. By phone: (415) 972–3286 or by
email at schwartz.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’
and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State repeal?
B. What was the purpose of the SIPapproved rule, and what is the purpose
of the State’s rescission request?
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request
for rescission?
B. Does the rule rescission meet the
evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State’s Submittal
A. What rule did the State repeal?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this
proposal with the dates that it was
adopted by the SDAPCD and approved
by the EPA. SDAPCD repealed this rule
from its local rulebook on June 27, 2012,
and, in a letter to the California Air
Resources Board (CARB) dated July 24,
2012, the District requested that CARB
petition the EPA to repeal the rule from
the California SIP.1 On March 4, 2015,
CARB submitted a formal request to the
EPA requesting that the EPA rescind
SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 from the SIP.2
TABLE 1—RULE FOR WHICH RESCISSION FROM THE SIP IS REQUESTED
Local agency
Rule No.
SDAPCD ...........
Rule title
67.11.1
Large Coating Operations for Wood Products .............................................
On September 4, 2015, the submittal
for the rescission of the SDAPCD Rule
67.11.1 was deemed by operation of law
to meet the completeness criteria in 40
CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be
met before formal EPA review.
B. What was the purpose of the SIPapproved rule, and what is the purpose
of the State’s rescission request?
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Emissions of VOCs contribute to the
production of ground-level ozone, smog
and particulate matter, which harm
human health and the environment.
1 Letter and attachments dated July 24, 2012, from
Robert Reider (for Rosa Marie S. Abreu, Assistant
Director, SDAPCD), to Michael J. Guzzetta,
Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, Program
Evaluation Branch, Stationary Source Division,
ARB, ‘‘Submittal and Repeal for State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendments to Rule
67.11—Wood Products Coating Operations. Repeal
Adopted
SIP
approval
date
09/25/2002
06/05/2003
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control
VOC emissions. Rule 67.11.1 was
adopted to meet reasonably available
control technology (RACT) requirements
under CAA section 182. The purpose of
Rule 67.11.1 was to limit VOC
emissions from wood products coating
operations, including emissions from
equipment cleaning, that are greater
than or equal to 25 tons per calendar
year. The SDAPCD adopted, and retains
in its rulebook, another SIP-approved
rule, Rule 67.11 3 to regulate this source
category. Rule 67.11 is as stringent as or
more stringent than Rule 67.11.1. As
noted in a July 24, 2012 letter from the
SDAPCD to CARB, the State is seeking
to rescind Rule 67.11.1 from the SIP,
based on its determination that Rule
67.11.1 ‘‘became duplicative of Rule
67.11 standards that took effect in 2005
. . . and Rule 67.11.1 became further
obsolete upon the Board’s adoption of
the amendments to Rule 67.11 on June
27, 2012.’’ 4
of Rule 67.11.1—Large Coating Operations for
Wood Products.’’
2 Letter dated March 4, 2015, from Richard Corey,
Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board,
to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA
Region IX, Request to Rescind District Rule 67.11.1
from the CA SIP.
3 The EPA approved SDAPCD Rule 67.11 into the
California SIP on April 11, 2013. 78 FR 21538.
4 Letter and attachments dated July 24, 2012, from
Robert Reider (for Rosa Marie S. Abreu, Assistant
Director, SDAPCD), to Michael J. Guzzetta,
Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, Program
Evaluation Branch, Stationary Source Division,
ARB, ‘‘Submittal and Repeal for State
Continued
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
62688
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The EPA’s technical support
document (TSD) for our proposed rule
action has more information about both
of these rules and the State’s request
that Rule 67.11.1 be rescinded from the
California SIP.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the
request for rescission?
Once a rule has been approved as part
of a SIP, the rescission of that rule from
the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To
approve such a revision, the EPA must
determine whether the revision meets
relevant CAA criteria for stringency, and
complies with restrictions on relaxation
of SIP measures under CAA section
110(l), and the General Savings Clause
in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved
control requirements in effect before
November 15, 1990.
Stringency: Generally, SIP rules must
require RACT for each category of
sources covered by a Control
Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document
as well as each major source of VOCs in
ozone nonattainment areas classified as
Moderate or above (see CAA section
182(b)(2)). The SDAPCD is designated as
an ozone nonattainment area classified
as Serious for the 2008 8-hour national
ambient air quality standards (NAAQS),
and was designated as Moderate for the
2015 ozone NAAQS on June 4, 2018.5
Plan Revisions: States must
demonstrate that SIP revisions would
not interfere with attainment,
reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the
CAA under the provisions of CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, consistent
with CAA section 110(l) requirements,
SDAPCD must demonstrate that the
rescission of Rule 67.11.1 from the SIP
would not interfere with attainment and
RFP of the NAAQS or any other
applicable CAA requirement.
General Savings Clause: CAA section
193 prohibits the modification of any
control requirement in effect, or
required to be adopted by an order,
settlement agreement or plan in effect
before November 15, 1990, in areas
designated as nonattainment for an air
pollutant unless the modification
ensures equivalent or greater emission
reductions of the relevant pollutant.
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to evaluate enforceability,
revision/relaxation and rule stringency
requirements for the applicable criteria
pollutants include the following:
Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendments to Rule
67.11—Wood Products Coating Operations. Repeal
of Rule 67.11.1—Large Coating Operations for
Wood Products.’’
5 See 40 CFR 81.305; 83 FR 25776.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
1. ‘‘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).
2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the
Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines:
Control of Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions from Wood Furniture
Manufacturing Operations.’’ EPA 453/
R–96–007, April 1996.
B. Does the rule rescission meet the
evaluation criteria?
We have concluded that SDAPCD
Rule 67.11.1 is appropriate for
rescission, given that the wood furniture
manufacturing source category
continues to be regulated by the
SDAPCD’s Rule 67.11, which has been
approved by the EPA into the California
SIP, and which we have determined is
as stringent as, or more stringent than
Rule 67.11.1, as detailed in the TSD
supporting this proposed rule action.6
Therefore, we have determined that the
rescission of this rule will not have any
adverse impact on SIP requirements for
RFP or attainment, or otherwise
interfere with any RACT requirements
under CAA section 182, or any other
applicable requirements of the CAA.
The EPA’s TSD contains additional
details about our evaluation. Lastly, we
note that Rule 67.11.1 was SIP-approved
post-1990; therefore, CAA section 193
does not apply to this action.
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to approve
the rescission of Rule 67.11.1 from the
San Diego portion of the California SIP
because it is no longer needed to meet
any CAA requirement and because
6 See also Technical Support Document for EPA’s
Notice of Direct Final Rulemaking for the California
State Implementation Plan, San Diego County Air
Pollution Control District, Rule 67.11, Wood
Products Coating Operations, United States
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX Air
Division. Adrianne Borgia, February 2013;
SDAPCD, CARB Rule Evaluation Form, Rule 67.11,
adopted 6/27/2012, submitted 7/25/2012; San Diego
Air Pollution Control Board, Minute Order No. 1,
Notice of Public Hearing, ‘‘Adoption of
Amendments to Rule 67.11—Wood Products
Coating Operations, and Repeal of Rule 67.11.1—
Large Coating Operations for Wood Products,’’ June
27, 2012; SDAPCD, Socioeconomic Impact
Assessment, Proposed Amended Rule 67.11—Wood
Products Coating Operations, August 2011.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
rescission would not interfere with RFP
or attainment of any of the NAAQS. We
will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until November 4,
2020. If we take final action to approve
the rule rescission, our final action will
rescind this rule from the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
proposing to amend regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference.
The EPA is proposing to remove
SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 as described in
Table 1 of this preamble from the
California State Implementation Plan,
which is incorporated by reference in
accordance with the requirements of 1
CFR part 51.
IV. 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, the 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 Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 3, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• 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
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 193 / Monday, October 5, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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 the 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, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
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.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
23:47 Oct 02, 2020
Jkt 253001
Dated: September 16, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020–20848 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
49 CFR Part 1039
[Docket No. EP 704 (Sub–No. 1)]
Review of Commodity, Boxcar, and
TOFC/COFC Exemptions
Surface Transportation Board.
Request for comment in
rulemaking proceeding.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Surface Transportation
Board (Board or STB) seeks public
comment on a new approach its Office
of Economics has developed for possible
use in considering class exemption and
revocation issues.
DATES: Initial comments are due on or
before December 4, 2020. Replies to
initial comments are due on or before
January 4, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Comments and replies may
be filed with the Board via e-filing and
will be posted to the Board’s website at
www.stb.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Amy Ziehm at (202) 245–0391.
Assistance for the hearing impaired is
available through Federal Relay Service
at (800) 877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March
23, 2016, the Board issued a notice of
proposed rulemaking seeking public
comment on its proposal to revoke the
existing class exemptions under 49 CFR
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 9990
62689
part 1039 for (1) crushed or broken
stone or rip rap; (2) hydraulic cement;
(3) coke produced from coal; (4) primary
iron or steel products; and (5) iron or
steel scrap, wastes, or tailings. Review of
Commodity, Boxcar & TOFC/COFC
Exemptions (NPRM), EP 704 (Sub–No.
1) (STB served Mar. 23, 2016) (with
Board Member Begeman dissenting).
The NPRM also invited interested
parties to file comments regarding the
possible revocation of other commodity
class exemptions. On March 19, 2019, to
permit informal discussions with
interested parties, the Board waived the
general prohibition on ex parte
communications in effect when the
proceeding was initiated. Review of
Commodity, Boxcar & TOFC/COFC
Exemptions, EP 704 (Sub–No. 1) (STB
served Mar. 19, 2019). Following the
feedback received during the course of
this proceeding, the Board’s Office of
Economics has developed an approach
for possible use in considering class
exemption and revocation issues. The
Board requests that interested parties
submit comments on the approach.
Additional information is contained
in the Board’s decision, available at
www.stb.gov.
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10502 and 13301.
List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1039
Agricultural commodities, Intermodal
transportation, Railroads.
Decided: September 29, 2020.
By the Board, Board Members Begeman,
Fuchs, and Oberman.
Aretha Laws-Byrum,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2020–21925 Filed 10–2–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915–01–P
E:\FR\FM\05OCP1.SGM
05OCP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62687-62689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20848]
[[Page 62687]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0364; FRL-10014-67-Region 9]
Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego Air Pollution Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve a revision to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District
(SDAPCD or ``District'') portion of the California State Implementation
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the regulation of emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from large coating operations for
wood products. We are proposing to approve the rescission of a local
rule from the California SIP that is no longer needed to regulate 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: Comments must be received on or before November 4, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0364 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The
written comment is considered the official comment and should include
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a
language other than English, or if you are a person with disabilities
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3286 or by
email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to the EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State repeal?
B. What was the purpose of the SIP-approved rule, and what is
the purpose of the State's rescission request?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
B. Does the rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State repeal?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by the SDAPCD and approved by the EPA. SDAPCD
repealed this rule from its local rulebook on June 27, 2012, and, in a
letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) dated July 24,
2012, the District requested that CARB petition the EPA to repeal the
rule from the California SIP.\1\ On March 4, 2015, CARB submitted a
formal request to the EPA requesting that the EPA rescind SDAPCD Rule
67.11.1 from the SIP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Letter and attachments dated July 24, 2012, from Robert
Reider (for Rosa Marie S. Abreu, Assistant Director, SDAPCD), to
Michael J. Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, Program
Evaluation Branch, Stationary Source Division, ARB, ``Submittal and
Repeal for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendments to Rule
67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations. Repeal of Rule 67.11.1--
Large Coating Operations for Wood Products.''
\2\ Letter dated March 4, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive
Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, Request to Rescind District
Rule 67.11.1 from the CA SIP.
Table 1--Rule for Which Rescission From the Sip Is Requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIP approval
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDAPCD............................ 67.11.1 Large Coating Operations for 09/25/2002 06/05/2003
Wood Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On September 4, 2015, the submittal for the rescission of the
SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
B. What was the purpose of the SIP-approved rule, and what is the
purpose of the State's rescission request?
Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level
ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit
regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 67.11.1 was adopted to
meet reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under
CAA section 182. The purpose of Rule 67.11.1 was to limit VOC emissions
from wood products coating operations, including emissions from
equipment cleaning, that are greater than or equal to 25 tons per
calendar year. The SDAPCD adopted, and retains in its rulebook, another
SIP-approved rule, Rule 67.11 \3\ to regulate this source category.
Rule 67.11 is as stringent as or more stringent than Rule 67.11.1. As
noted in a July 24, 2012 letter from the SDAPCD to CARB, the State is
seeking to rescind Rule 67.11.1 from the SIP, based on its
determination that Rule 67.11.1 ``became duplicative of Rule 67.11
standards that took effect in 2005 . . . and Rule 67.11.1 became
further obsolete upon the Board's adoption of the amendments to Rule
67.11 on June 27, 2012.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The EPA approved SDAPCD Rule 67.11 into the California SIP
on April 11, 2013. 78 FR 21538.
\4\ Letter and attachments dated July 24, 2012, from Robert
Reider (for Rosa Marie S. Abreu, Assistant Director, SDAPCD), to
Michael J. Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, Program
Evaluation Branch, Stationary Source Division, ARB, ``Submittal and
Repeal for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendments to Rule
67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations. Repeal of Rule 67.11.1--
Large Coating Operations for Wood Products.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 62688]]
The EPA's technical support document (TSD) for our proposed rule
action has more information about both of these rules and the State's
request that Rule 67.11.1 be rescinded from the California SIP.
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of
that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a
revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant
CAA criteria for stringency, and complies with restrictions on
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General
Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements
in effect before November 15, 1990.
Stringency: Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each
category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG)
document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment
areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The
SDAPCD is designated as an ozone nonattainment area classified as
Serious for the 2008 8-hour national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS), and was designated as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on
June 4, 2018.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See 40 CFR 81.305; 83 FR 25776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP) or any
other applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA
section 110(l). Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110(l)
requirements, SDAPCD must demonstrate that the rescission of Rule
67.11.1 from the SIP would not interfere with attainment and RFP of the
NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification
of any control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an
order, settlement agreement or plan in effect before November 15, 1990,
in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the
modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the
relevant pollutant.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
1. ``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).
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11,
1990).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines: Control of Volatile Organic
Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.'' EPA
453/R-96-007, April 1996.
B. Does the rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?
We have concluded that SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 is appropriate for
rescission, given that the wood furniture manufacturing source category
continues to be regulated by the SDAPCD's Rule 67.11, which has been
approved by the EPA into the California SIP, and which we have
determined is as stringent as, or more stringent than Rule 67.11.1, as
detailed in the TSD supporting this proposed rule action.\6\ Therefore,
we have determined that the rescission of this rule will not have any
adverse impact on SIP requirements for RFP or attainment, or otherwise
interfere with any RACT requirements under CAA section 182, or any
other applicable requirements of the CAA. The EPA's TSD contains
additional details about our evaluation. Lastly, we note that Rule
67.11.1 was SIP-approved post-1990; therefore, CAA section 193 does not
apply to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See also Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of
Direct Final Rulemaking for the California State Implementation
Plan, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, Rule 67.11,
Wood Products Coating Operations, United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX Air Division. Adrianne Borgia, February
2013; SDAPCD, CARB Rule Evaluation Form, Rule 67.11, adopted 6/27/
2012, submitted 7/25/2012; San Diego Air Pollution Control Board,
Minute Order No. 1, Notice of Public Hearing, ``Adoption of
Amendments to Rule 67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations, and
Repeal of Rule 67.11.1--Large Coating Operations for Wood
Products,'' June 27, 2012; SDAPCD, Socioeconomic Impact Assessment,
Proposed Amended Rule 67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations,
August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to
approve the rescission of Rule 67.11.1 from the San Diego portion of
the California SIP because it is no longer needed to meet any CAA
requirement and because rescission would not interfere with RFP or
attainment of any of the NAAQS. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until November 4, 2020. If we take final action to
approve the rule rescission, our final action will rescind this rule
from the federally enforceable SIP.
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text
that includes incorporation by reference. The EPA is proposing to
remove SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 as described in Table 1 of this preamble
from the California State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by
reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.
IV. 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, the 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
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
[[Page 62689]]
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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000).
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: September 16, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-20848 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P