SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

 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 DISTRICT 

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

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 the 

body 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 3 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
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 section 

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 4 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 136 / Friday, July 15, 2011 / Proposed Rules 41747 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 5 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
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 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 6 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
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. 

Subject 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 requires 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. 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 7 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
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 (Issues 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 document entitled, “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 

submittals 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 before 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 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 8 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
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, SJVUAPCD adopted its “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 RACT 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 Stationary 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 

discussed 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 memo 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 emission 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 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 9 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
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 molding, 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.

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 10 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
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. 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 11 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
-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 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 12 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
 -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. 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 13 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682
-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 

Appendix C: EPA Documents SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT December 15, 2011 C - 14 Final Staff Report with Appendices for 

Revised Proposed Amendments to Rule 4682