## SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix C: EPA Documents December 15, 2011

C – 1 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

# APPENDIX C

EPA Documents: Federal Register Notice Technical Support Document (TSD)

O’Connor Memo

December 15, 2011

## SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DI STRICT

Appendix C: EPA Documents December 15, 2011

C – 2 Final Staff Report with Appendices for Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682 

## This page intentionally blank.

### 41745 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

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 :**  Adrianne Borgia, EPA Region IX, (415) 972–3576, borgia.adrianne@epa.gov.

**SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION :**  This proposal addresses the following local rules: SCAQMD Rule 1143, ‘‘Consumer Paint Thinner & Multi-Purpose Solvents’’ and SCAQMD Rule 1144, ‘‘Metal Working Fluids & Direct-Contact Lubricants,’’ In the Rules and Regulations section of this Federal Register , we are approving these local rules in a direct final action without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. Please note that if we receive adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, we may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final action.

Dated: June 23, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 2011–17758 Filed 7–14–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 52**

**[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0546; FRL–9438–9]**

**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 a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 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 proposing action on a local rule that regulates these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA). We are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

**DATES :**  Any comments must arrive by August 15, 2011.

**ADDRESSES :**  Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA–R09– OAR–2011–0546, 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 thebody of your comment. If you send email 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 :**  Mae Wang, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–4124, wang.mae@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. What are the rule deficiencies? D. EPA Recommendations To Further

Improve the Rule. E. Proposed Action and Public Comment. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

We are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing, amended on September 20, 2007, and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) on March 7, 2008. On April 17, 2008, the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 was found to meet 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). 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 4682 was designed to reduce emissions of VOCs from the manufacturing, processing, and storage of products composed of polystyrene, polyethylene, or 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 CAA section 110(a)), and must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for each category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines document as well as each major source in


### 41746 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

nonattainment areas (see CAA sections 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)). 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. ‘‘Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing’’ (EPA–450/3–90–020, September 1990).

4. ‘‘Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits—SIP Revision Policy,’’ memorandum from John R. O’Connor, OAQPS, dated January 20, 1984.

Additionally, SIP revisions must not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the CAA (see CAA section 110(l)) or modify,in a nonattainment area, any SIPapproved control requirement in effect before November 15, 1990 (see CAA section 193).

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

Rule 4682 improves the SIP by clarifying language, adding definitions, and adding control requirements. This rule also improves the SIP by adding requirements for compliance plans, recordkeeping, and testing. The rule is generally clear and contains appropriate monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to ensure the emission limits are adequately enforceable. The rule is largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. We are proposing to determine that 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. Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and discussed further in the TSD. C. What are the rule deficiencies?
Rule 4682 contains a monthly averaging provision that conflicts with CAA section 110 and part D, and prevents full approval of the SIP revision. Section 5.3.1 of Rule 4682 establishes 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. Rules for this source category in other districts contain similar limits without the monthly averaging. A more detailed discussion of this deficiency is contained in the TSD.

D. 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.
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited disapproval of the rule under CAA section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under CAA section 179 unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the disapproval. These sanctions would be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the 2-year clock for the federal implementation plan requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, and EPA’s final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from enforcing it. The limited disapproval also would not prevent any portion of the rule from being incorporated by reference into the federally enforceable SIP as discussed in a July 9, 1992, EPA memo found at: http://www.epa.gov/nsr/ttnnsr01/gen/ pdf/memo-s.pdf

. We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days. III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review.’’ B. Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. Burden is defined at 5 CFR 1320.3(b).
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.

This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals or disapprovals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the proposed Federal SIP limited approval/limited disapproval does not create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of State action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

Under sections 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome


### 41747 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules

alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the limited approval/limited disapproval action proposed does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action proposes to approve and disapprove pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have federalism implications’’ is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.’’ Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation.

This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132, because it merely proposes to approve or disapprove a State rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

Executive Order 13175, entitled ‘‘Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.’’ This proposed rule does not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials. G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks

EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5–501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045, because it approves a State rule implementing a Federal standard.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today’s action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations

Executive Order (EO) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States.

EPA lacks the discretionary authority to address environmental justice in this rulemaking.
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: June 29, 2011. Jared Blumenfeld, Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 2011–17784 Filed 7–14–11; 8:45 am]

**BILLING CODE 6560–50–P**

**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY** 

**40 CFR Part 82**

**[EPA–HQ–OAR–2010–0672; FRL–9439–3]**

**RIN 2060–AQ39**

**Protection of Stratospheric Ozone: Extension of Global Laboratory and**  **Analytical Use Exemption for Essential Class I Ozone-Depleting Substances** 

**AGENCY :**  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

**ACTION :**  Proposed rule.

**SUMMARY :**  EPA is proposing to extend the global laboratory and analytical use exemption for the production and import of Class I ozone-depleting substances through December 31, 2014, consistent with the recent actions by the


## UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX AIR DIVISION

Technical Support Document

for

EPA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for the

California State Implementation Plan

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing

June 13 , 2011

Prepared by Mae Wang

## Agency: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

SIP Approved Rule: SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene Foam, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Manufacturing (originally adopted on May 21, 1992, amended June 16, 1994, approved on June 13, 1995, 60 FR 31086).

SJVUAPCD Rule 1020, Definitions (originally adopted on 6/18/1992, amended on 1/15/2009, approved on 8/28/2009, 74 FR 44291.

Su bject of this TSD: SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing Amended September 20, 2007; Submitted March 7, 2008.

Rule Summary

Rule 4682 was designed to reduce emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and trichlorofluoromethane (CFC-11) and dichlorofluoromethane (CFC-12) from the manufacturing, processing, and storage of products composed of polystyrene, polyethylene, or polypropylene. The currently submitted version of the rule contains revisions that expand the rule to include reduction or control of VOC emissions from all manufacturing processes, including storage and curing. The rule requir es facilities to comply with one of the following four options: a limit on the emissions of VOC for each 100 pounds of material processed, use of a non-VOC blowing agent, use of an approved emission control system with product storage in a controlled warehouse, or a demonstration that emissions are no greater than those that would occur with an approved emission control system. The first option, a limit on the VOC emissions for each 100 pounds of material processed, is a new option that was not contained in the previous version of the rule.

Changes from the approved SIP rule include:

Sections 1 .0 (Purpose) and 2.0 (Applicability) were amended for clarity.

The following definitions were added to Section 3.0: APCO, ARB, Approved Emission Control System, EPA, Manufacturing Emissions, Manufacturing Operation, and Raw Material.

Language was added to Section 5.0 (Requirements) to state that Section 5.1 shall be effective until September 20, 2010, and Sections 5.3 through 5.5 shall be effective on and after September 20, 2010.

Section 5.3 through 5.5 were added to identify the emission control options with which operators must comply after September 20, 2010.

## 3

Section 5.6 (Compliance Plan) was added to require submission of a Compliance Plan and identify the necessary information to be included in the Plan.

Section 6.1 (Recordkeeping) was amended to require records to demonstrate compliance with Section 5.3.1, and to require that records be kept at the facility for 5 years.

Section 6.2 (Test Methods) was amended to include methods for determining control efficiency of emission control systems, capture efficiency of emission capture control systems, and the VOC contained in polymeric materials. Language was added to state that a violation of any of the methods is considered a violation of the rule, and that alternative methods may be used if approved in writing by the APCO and EPA.

Section 7.0 (Compliance Schedule) was amended to include the new compliance date of September 20, 2010.

EPA Evaluation

The following criteria and guidance documents were used to evaluate the submitted rule:

1. Enforceability - The Bluebook ( Issu es Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations , EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook ( Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001) were used to help evaluate compliance with the CAA §110(a)(2)(A) requirement for enforceability.

2. RACT - EPA’s docume nt en titled, “Control of VOC Emissions from Polystyrene Foam Manufacturing ” (EPA-450/3-90 -020, September 1990), and other state and local rules for this category were used to help evaluate the RACT requirements of CAA §182(b)(2) and §182(f).

3

. SIP Relaxation - Where previous versions of rules have been SIP approved, new subm ittals must comply with CAA §110(l) and §193 regarding SIP relaxations. We have evaluated this SIP revision to determine whether it would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress (RFP) or any other applicable requirement of the Act (CAA 110(l)) or modify, in a nonattainment area, any
SIP

- approved control requirement in effect bef ore November 15, 1990 (CAA 193).

4. Compliance averaging times

– “Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission
Limits

– SIP Revision Policy,” memorandum from John R. O’Connor, OAQPS, dated January 20, 1984.

With the exception of the one enforceability issue identified in the Rule Deficiency section below, SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 fulfills the relevant criteria summarized above. Rule 4682 improves the SIP by clarifying language, adding definitions, and adding control

## 4

requirements. This rule also improves the SIP by adding requirements for compliance plans, recordkeeping, and testing. The rule is generally clear and contains appropriate monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements to ensure the emission limits are adequately enforceable.

The SJVUAPCD regulates an extreme 8 -hour and extreme 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (40 CFR 81). On April 16, 2009, SJVU APCD adopted i ts “2009 RACT Demonstration for
Ozone SIP,” which provides the District’s demonstration that RACT is implemented for all appropriate activities. Rule 4682 was included as part of this demonstration. SJVUAPCD’s 2009 RA CT Demonstration asserts that Rule 4682 fulfills CAA RACT requirements for reasons including:

1. The requirements in Rule 4682 are consistent with recommendations contained in EPA’s Control Technique Guidelines and Alternative Control Technology documents. 2. The requirements in Rule 4682 are consistent with the Standards of Performance for
New Sta tionary Sources (NSPS) in 40 CFR Part 60, Subpart DDD

– Standards of Performance for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from the Polymer Manufacturing Industry. 3. The requirements of Rule 4682 are consistent with rules from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and South Coast Air Quality Management District that regulate this source category.

With the exception of the deficiency discussed below, we concur that Rule 4682 fulfills RACT for the above reasons. Additionally, we are not aware of any more stringent controls adopted or demonstrated to be reasonably available for this industry.

Rule Deficiency

The following deficiency precludes full approval of the rule into the SIP:

Section 5.3.1: This section establishes 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. These criteria are dis cussed in a memorandum from John R. O’Connor, OAQPS

, dated January 20, 1984, “Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits – SIP Revision Policy.”

The O’Connor m emo states that longer averaging times may be permitted under certain conditions in cases where daily emissions cannot be determined or the application of RACT for each em ission point (line, machine, etc.) is not economically or technically feasible on a daily basis. The staff report for Rule 4682 does not provide a clear explanation of why daily emissions cannot be determined. Additionally, South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1175 and Maricopa County (Arizona) Rule 358 contain similar limits without the monthly averaging. SJVUAPCD will need to demonstrate why an emission limit that appears to have been achieved in practice by existing operations in other districts cannot be met on a daily basis in the SJVUAPCD. We understand that certain types of facilities may have more difficulty than

## 5

others in meeting the 2.4 pounds VOC limit. To address this concern, some other district rules have set limits ranging from 2.4 pounds to 3.2 pounds, depending on the type of facility (such as cup moldi ng, shape molding, or block molding). If needed, SJVUAPCD could consider such an approach as well.

The O’Connor memo also stresses that real reductions in actual emissions must be achieved and that the emission limits should reflect typical real-life production rates and operating hours. These criteria should be supported by historical production and operation data. The staff report for Rule 4682 does not provide clear historical production and operating rates. Instead, the information provided in Appendix B of SJVUAPCD’s staff report for Rule 4682 appears to be largely estimated inventories and emissions reductions based on potential or allowable emissions.

Additional Recommendations

The following suggested revisions are not currently the basis for rule disapproval, but are recommended for the next time the rule is amended.

Section 5.3.5.1: We recommend the following language, “The beads used in manufacturing
have an annual

- average VOC content of less than 4.2% per by weight as certified by the manufacturer ; and”

EPA Action

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682 strengthens the SIP, and the associated District staff report estimates that it will reduce VOC emissions by 0.4 tons per day. The rule largely fulfills the relevant Clean Air Act §110 and Part D requirements, but the deficiency discussed above precludes full SIP approval. EPA staff recommends a simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 4682 pursuant to CAA §110(k)(3) and §301(a).

Attachments
1. Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4682, Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing, amended September 20, 2007. 2. Applicable SIP Rule 4682, amended June 16, 1994. 3. O’Connor memo, January 20, 1984.

## UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Office of Air Quality Manning and Standards Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
JAN 2 0 1984

MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: Averaging Times for Compliance With VOC Emission Limits - SIP Revision Policy

FROM: John R. O'Connor, Acting Director Office of Air Quality Planning a Standards (MD-10)
TO: Director, Air and Waste Planning 'Division Regions 11-IV, VI-VIII, X Director, Air Management Division, Regions 1, V, IX

The purpose of this memorandum is to clarify the Agency's policy regarding emission time averaging for existing sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC's). Numerous State Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions, both broad regulations and source-specific changes, have been submitted which provide for compliance determinations by time averaging" emissions of VOC for periods exceeding 24 hours. These requests and the following policy on this subject were discussed extensively at a recent meeting attended by those Regional Offices which have the most pending actions (Regions 1, III, IV. V); the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards; and the Office of General Counsel. This policy represents the consensus of the meeting attendees.

The objective of EPA's national VOC emissions control program is the timely attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone. SIP revisions and other regulatory actions relating to VOC control must maintain the integrity of this basic objective. There should be assurances that VOC emission control is reasonably consistent with protecting this short-term ozone standard. Further, since SIP's and associated VOC control programs contemplate the actual application of reasonably available control technology (RACT), regulatory actions that incorporate longer term averages to circumvent the installation of overall

RACT level controls cannot be allowed.

## -2-

CurrentAgency guidance specifies the use of a daily weighted average for VOC regulations as the preferred alternative where continuous compliance is not feasible. An example might be where a facility operates in a batch manner with multiple lines and various products. Reference ii made to the December 8, 1980. Federal Register (copy attached) where can coating operators are all allowed to -bubble- several production lines and average emissions over a 24-hour time period.

The preferred daily weighted average alternative may not be feasible in all cases. Where the source operations are such that daily emissions cannot be determined or where the application of RACT for each emission point (line, machine, etc.) is not economically or technically feasible on a daily basis, longer averaging times can be permitted under certain conditions. In determining feasibility, consideration might be given, for example, to the extent to which modifications can be made to testing, inventory, or record keeping practices in order to quantify daily emissions. Also, variability or lack of predictability in a source's daily operationmight be considered as well as availability of control technology or the physical impediment or restriction to control equipment installation. In order to allow longer than daily averaging in SIP regulations, the following conditions or principles must be honored:

1. Real reductions in actual emissions must be achieved, consistent with the RACT levels specified in SIP's or the control technique guidelines (CTG's). These limits are typically expressed in terms of VOC per unit of production (a qualitative such as lbs VOC/gal coating). Where it is not feasible to specify emission limits In such terms, emission limits per unit of time can be approved provided that:

a. The mission limits reflect typical (rather than potential or allowable) production rate and operating hours. These emission limits must truly reflect emissions reductions consistent with RACT and are not simply an artificial constraint on potential emissions. 'This must be supported in the SIP revision by historical production and operation data.

b. Nonproduction or equipment downtime credits are not allowed in the emission limit calculation unless a Federally enforceable document specifically restricts operation during these times. Such credit must be based on real, historical emissions.

2. Averaging periods must be as short as practicable and in no case longer than 30 days.

3. A demonstration must be made that the use of long-term averaging (greater than 24-hour averaging) will not jeopardize either ambient standards attainment or the reasonable further progress (RFP) plan for the area. This must be accomplished by showing

## -3-

that the maximum daily increase in emissions associated with long-term averaging is consistent with the approved ozone SIP for the area.

4. Sources in areas lacking approved SIP's, or in areas with 'approved SIP's but showing measured violations, cannot be considered for longer term averages until the SIP has been revised demonstrating ambient standards attainment and maintenance of RFP (reflecting the maximum daily emissions from the source with long~-term averaging).

Meaningful short-term (i.e.,, daily) emission caps are desirable especially for sources subject to large fluctuations in emissions. The use of a daily cap (equal to or less than current average emissions on a daily basis) that limits short-term emissions to RACT equivalent levels would meet the above objective of ensuring VOC control that is consistent with attaining the

MARS for ozone.

States have the primary responsibility to show adherence to the above principles and, to do so, must include the following information (in detail) in all SIP revision requests that seek VOC averaging times greater than 24 hours:

1. The VOC limits specified in an enforceable form with appropriate compliance dates.

2. A description of the affected processes and associated historical production and operating rates.

3. A description of the control techniques to be applied to the affected processes such as low solvent and waterborne coating; technology and/or add-on controls.

4. The nature of the emission control program whether a bubble, a regulation change, a compliance schedule, or some other form of alternative control program.

5. The method of record keeping and reporting to be employed to demonstrate compliance with the new emission limit requirement and to support the showing that
the emission limit is consistent with RFP and the demonstration of attainment.

Each EPA Regional Office shall have the primary responsibility for determining the approvability of application requests. However, in order to assure Regional consistency. coordination with the Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards staff is encouraged during the initial development of any single "time average' SIP revision or regulation. Also, all SIP revisions involving long-term averaging must be proposed in the Federal Register with an explanation of how the principles listed above have been satisfied.

## -4-

Should there be any questions on this policy. please call Tom Helms (FTS 629-5526) or Brock Nicholson (FTS 629-5516).

Attachment

cc: Barbara Bankoff Ron Campbell
Jack Farmer
Mike Levin 

## Ed Reich 

## B. J. Steigerwald Darryl Tyler Peter Wyckoff Chief, Air Branch, Regions I-X 

## Regional Administrator, Regions I-X