Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 19931 

Appendix A 

USPS–Approved Independent Test 

Laboratories 

To obtain the latest list of USPS-approved 

test labs, contact: USPS ENGINEERING 

SYSTEMS, DELIVERY AND RETAIL 

TECHNOLOGY, 8403 LEE HIGHWAY, 

MERRIFIELD, VA 22082–8101. 

Additional test laboratories may be added 

provided they satisfy USPS certification 

criteria. Interested laboratories should 

contact: USPS ENGINEERING, TEST 

EVALUATION AND QUALITY, 8403 LEE 

HIGHWAY, MERRIFIELD, VA 22082–8101. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08342 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–C 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2014–0841; FRL–9926–17– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a 

revision to the South Coast Air Quality 

Management District (SCAQMD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This 

revision concerns volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from Large 

Confined Animal Facilities (LCAFs). We 

are proposing to approve a local rule 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: Any comments must arrive by 

May 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number [EPA–R09– 

OAR–2014–0841, 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. 

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 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: 

Nancy Levin, EPA Region IX, (415) 972– 

3848, levin.nancy@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. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rule(s) 

D. 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 submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the dates that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board. 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SCAQMD .......................................... 223 Emission Reduction Permits for Large Confined Animal Facilities.06/02/06 03/17/09 

On April 20, 2009, EPA determined 

that the submittal for SCAQMD Rule 

223 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? 

There are no previous versions of 

Rule 223 in the SIP, and the District has 

not adopted earlier versions of this rule. 

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 223 establishes 

permitting requirements for LCAFs and 

establishes a menu of management 

practice options that LCAF owner/

operators must select from and 

implement. The rule requirements apply 

to large operations above specified size 

thresholds, including dairies with at 

least 1,000 milking cows and poultry 

facilities with at least 650,000 birds. The 

rule requires these operations to apply 

for and obtain an SCAQMD permit that 

includes a mitigation plan with 

measures as listed in an appendix to the 

rule. 

EPA’s technical support document 

(TSD) has more information about this 

rule. 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
19932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 71 / Tuesday, April 14, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see CAA section 110(a)(2)), 

must not interfere with applicable 

requirements concerning attainment and 

reasonable further progress or other 

CAA requirements (see CAA section 

110(l)), and must not modify certain SIP 

control requirements in nonattainment 

areas without ensuring equivalent or 

greater emissions reductions (see CAA 

section 193). 

The Los Angeles-South Coast air basin 

is an ozone nonattainment area 

classified as extreme for the 1-hour 

ozone, 1997 8-hour ozone, and 2008 8- 

hour ozone national ambient air quality 

standards (NAAQS). 

Guidance and policy documents that 

we use to evaluate enforceability and 

revision/relaxation requirements for the 

applicable criteria pollutants include 

the following: 

1. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation 

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 

Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the 

Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). 

2. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting 

Common VOC & Other Rule 

Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 

2001 (the Little Bluebook). 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

We believe this rule is consistent with 

the relevant policy and guidance 

regarding enforceability and SIP 

relaxations. It contains clear thresholds 

and control requirements, and it 

strengthens the SIP by adding new 

controls for LCAFs. 

The TSD has more information on our 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule(s) 

In our TSD we identify additional 

control options that may be reasonably 

available for implementation in the Los 

Angeles-South Coast area (see 

‘‘Additional Recommendations’’) and 

that we recommend for the next time 

the local agency modifies the rule. 

D. Public Comment and Proposed 

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 

will accept comments from the public 

on this proposal until May 14, 2015. 

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. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, the EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

South Coast Air Quality Management 

District Rule 223—Emission Reduction 

Permits for Large Confined Animal 

Facilities, as listed in Table 1 of this 

notice. The EPA has made, and will 

continue to make, these documents 

generally available electronically 

through www.regulations.gov and/or in 

hard copy at the appropriate EPA office 

(see the ADDRESSES section of this 

preamble for more information). 

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, 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, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

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

Dated: March 30, 2015. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08469 Filed 4–13–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2015–0082; 9926–15– 

Region 9] 

Revisions to the California SIP, 

Ventura & Eastern Kern Air Pollution 

Control Districts; Permit Exemptions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

and Eastern Kern Air Pollution Control 

District (EKAPCD) portions of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). These revisions clarify, update, 

and revise exemptions from New Source 

Review (NSR) permitting requirements, 

for various air pollution sources. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

May 14, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 


asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS