```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 176 (Monday, September 12, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56132-56134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-23136]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0733; FRL-9462-2]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin 
operations. 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. In a separate interim final action published in the Rules 
section in today's Federal Register, we are deferring related CAA 
sanctions that would otherwise apply to the SJVUAPCD.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 12, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2011-0733, by one of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    2. E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
    3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://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 http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. http://www.regulations.gov is an 
``anonymous access'' system, and EPA will not know your identity or 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. 
If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be 
automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If 
EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    Docket: Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http://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 http://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: David Grounds, EPA Region IX, (415) 
972-3019, grounds.david@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 revisions?
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?

    By letter dated July 22, 2011, CARB submitted to EPA on behalf of 
SJVUAPCD a proposed rule, with request for parallel processing.\1\ See 
June 22, 2011 letter to Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, EPA 
Region 9, from James N. Goldstene, Executive Officer, CARB.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under EPA's ``parallel processing'' procedure, EPA proposes 
rulemaking action concurrently with the State's proposed rulemaking. 
If the State's proposed rule is changed, EPA will evaluate that 
subsequent change and may publish another notice of proposed 
rulemaking. If no significant change is made, EPA will publish a 
final rulemaking on the rule after responding to any submitted 
comments. Final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only after the 
rule has been fully adopted by California and submitted formally to 
EPA for incorporation into the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the rule 
title.

      Table 1--Rule Submitted by California for Parallel Processing
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Rule
             Local  agency               No.           Rule title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..............................   4684  Polyester Resin
                                                Operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CARB's July 22, 2011 parallel processing request includes the 
District Notice of Public Hearing to be held on August 18, 2011 and the 
amended District Rule 4684. SJVUAPCD amended Rule 4684 on June 16, 
2011. Due to procedural issues with the local public notification 
process, SJVUAPCD readopted these amendments on August 18, 2011 and 
expects CARB to submit them to EPA soon.
    EPA is granting CARB's request that EPA ``parallel process'' our 
review and propose action on the rule. All of the relevant documents 
are available for

[[Page 56133]]

review in the docket for today's proposed rulemaking.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved an earlier version of Rule 4684 (adopted locally 
December 20, 2001) into the SIP on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 42999). We also 
finalized a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of a 
subsequent version of Rule 4684 (adopted locally on September 20, 2007) 
on January 26, 2010 (75 FR 3996), thereby incorporating that version of 
the rule into the SIP. The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 17, 2009 and CARB submitted them to us on 
May 17, 2010, but we did not act on those revisions. On July 22, 2011, 
CARB submitted a request to EPA to approve further draft revisions to 
Rule 4684 using EPA's authority to parallel process SIP revisions. 
SJVUAPCD adopted these amendments on August 18, 2011 and expects CARB 
to submit them to EPA soon. While we are only acting on the ``parallel 
processing'' version, we have reviewed materials provided with previous 
submittals.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    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 4684 limits VOC 
emissions from polyester resin operations, associated organic solvent 
cleaning and storage, and disposal of solvents and waste solvent 
materials. 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?

    Several statutory provisions apply to EPA's evaluation of the 
rules. CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requires that regulations submitted to 
EPA for approval into a SIP must be clear and legally enforceable. CAA 
section 110(l) prohibits EPA from approving any SIP revision that would 
interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and 
reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement 
of the CAA, and CAA section 193 prohibits the modification of any SIP-
approved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990, in a 
nonattainment area. CAA section 172(c)(1) requires nonattainment areas 
to implement all reasonably available control measures (RACM), 
including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in the 
area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of 
reasonably available control technology (RACT), as expeditiously as 
practicable. In addition, under CAA section 182(b)(2), ozone 
nonattainment areas classified as moderate or above must implement RACT 
for all VOC sources covered by a Control Technique Guideline (CTG) 
document and for all other major sources of VOCs. The SJVUAPCD 
regulates an ozone nonattainment area that is classified as Extreme 
under both the one-hour ozone and eight-hour ozone standards (40 CFR 
81.305 (2011)) and Rule 4684 applies to major sources, as well as 
sources covered by a CTG document. Therefore, Rule 4684 must fulfill 
RACT requirements for VOCs.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate 
enforceability and RACT requirements 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. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat 
Manufacturing Materials,'' EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant CAA 
requirements and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP 
revisions. The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes one additional rule revision that we recommend 
for the next time the local agency modifies the rule but is not 
currently the basis for rule disapproval.

D. Proposed Action, 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 once we receive the final adopted version 
as a revision to the California SIP. If the final version of the rule 
submitted for SIP approval differs substantially from the version 
proposed and submitted for ``parallel processing,'' this will result in 
the need for additional proposed rulemaking on this rule.
    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. Our final 
action will permanently terminate the sanctions clocks associated with 
our January 26, 2010 action on the effective date of the final 
approval.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve State law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the Clean Air Act; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address disproportionate human health or

[[Page 56134]]

environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally 
permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 
16, 1994).
    In addition, this proposed action does not have Tribal implications 
as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 
organic compounds.

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

    Dated: August 31, 2011.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2011-23136 Filed 9-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
```