[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 83 (Monday, April 30, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 25384-25386]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10202]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0267; FRL-9665-6]


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 wine storage. We are 
approving a local rule that regulates 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 May 30, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET 
NUMBER], by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-
line instructions.
    2. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#86f5f2e3e5ede3eaa8e7e8e2f4e3f1c6e3f6e7a8e1e9f0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="3c4f48595f575950125d52584e594b7c594c5d125b534a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#04736b6a632a686d687d446174652a636b72"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3948c8d84cd8f8a8f9aa3869382cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a>.

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?

[[Page 25385]]

    C. 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).

                                             Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                 Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted          Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................              4694  Wine Fermentation and           12/15/05          11/18/11
                                                       Storage Tanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 22, 2011, EPA determined that the November 18, 2011 
submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4694 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 4694 in the SIP. CARB 
originally submitted Rule 4694 to EPA on June 16, 2006, and EPA will 
refer to that version of the rule as the ``originally submitted Rule 
4694.'' While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, 
we have reviewed materials provided with previous submittals.
    On August 18, 2011, SJVUAPCD adopted Resolution No. 11-08-20 in 
which the Governing Board approved ``* * * an amendment to its earlier 
SIP submittal of Rule 4694 (Wine Fermentation and Storage Tanks), as 
set forth in the strike-out version of the Rule, attached hereto and 
incorporated herein by this reference.'' The Resolution also stated 
that the strike-out text represents SJVUAPCD's withdrawal of those 
provisions for consideration by EPA for SIP approval. This revised SIP 
submittal of Rule 4694 was submitted to EPA from CARB on November 18, 
2011, and will be referred to in this notice as the ``amended submittal 
of Rule 4694.''

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. The amended submittal 
of Rule 4694 applies to wineries that store fermented wine in bulk 
containers (i.e., storage tanks), and requires that the stored wine be 
maintained at or below 75 degrees Fahrenheit and the storage tanks to 
be equipped with pressure-vacuum relief valves. 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). Because Rule 4694 
regulates major sources, Rule 4694 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. 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).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. SJVUAPCD 
evaluated RACT for emissions from wine fermentation and storage.
    While EPA has not developed a CTG document for wine fermentation 
and storage, this category includes sources that emit more than 10 tons 
per year of VOCs (i.e., major sources). Consequently, Rule 4694 must 
fulfill RACT.
    SJVUAPCD evaluated six technologies for controlling emissions from 
wine fermentation and wine storage. SJVUAPCD concluded that while the 
control technologies were technologically feasible, they were not 
demonstrated to be economically feasible at this time. Furthermore, 
SJVUAPCD determined that there are no control technologies currently 
achieved in practice in this source category. Consequently, SJVUAPCD 
concluded that there are no reasonably available control technologies 
for wine fermentation and wine storage.
    EPA agrees with SJVUAPCD's conclusion that emission controls have 
not been demonstrated in practice for wine fermentation emissions on 
the scale of the affected facilities. Therefore EPA agrees that RACT 
for wine fermentation emissions at this time is no controls.
    For wine storage emissions, SJVUAPCD concluded that the six control 
technologies as well as the use of pressure-vacuum relief valves and 
temperature control was not cost effective and that RACT for wine 
storage is also no controls. We note however that the amended submittal 
of Rule 4694 requires pressure-vacuum relief valves and temperature 
control, and EPA is not aware of reasonably available control 
technology that might be beyond this control technology. EPA therefore 
concludes that the amended submittal of Rule 4694 meets or exceeds RACT 
for emissions from wine storage. The TSD has more information on our 
evaluation.

C. 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.
    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

[[Page 25386]]

182 RACT requirements for wine fermentation and storage tank 
operations. See 77 FR 1417, 1425 (January 10, 2012). Final approval of 
Rule 4694 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.

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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> 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
    <bullet> 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: April 13, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2012-10202 Filed 4-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>