SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice August 18, 2011 

Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684

C-1

APPENDIX C 

Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 16 Notice 

August 18, 2011 
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice August 18, 2011 

Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684

C-2

This page intentionally blank. 

 
3996 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Subpart BB—Montana 

■ 2. Section 52.1370 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(68) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1370 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(68) Revisions to the State 

Implementation plan which were 

submitted by the State of Montana on 

November 1, 2006 and November 20, 

2007. The revisions are to the 

Administrative Rules of Montana; they 

make minor editorial and grammatical 

changes, update the citations and 

references to federal and state laws and 

regulations, make other minor changes 

to conform to federal regulations, and 

update links to sources of information. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM) section 17.8.101, Definitions; 

effective August 11, 2006. 

(B) Administrative Rules of Montana 

(ARM) sections: 17.8.102, Incorporation 

by Reference—Publication Dates; 

17.8.103, Incorporation by Reference 

and Availability of Referenced 

Documents; 17.8.302(1)(d), 

Incorporation by Reference; 17.8.602, 

Incorporation by Reference; 17.8.801, 

Definitions; 17.8.818, Review of Major 

Stationary Sources and Major 

Modifications—Source Applicability 

and Exemptions; 17.8.901, Definitions; 

17.8.1007, Baseline for Determining 

Credit for Emissions and Air Quality 

Offsets; and, 17.8.1102, Incorporation by 

Reference; all effective October 26, 

2007. 

[FR Doc. 2010–1386 Filed 1–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0475; FRL–9104–7] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited 

approval and limited disapproval of 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air 

Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD or 

District) portion of the California State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). This action 

was proposed in the Federal Register on 

July 17, 2009 and concerns volatile 

organic compound (VOC) emissions 

from steam-enhanced crude oil 

production well vents, aerospace 

coating operations, and polyester resin 

operations. Under authority of the Clean 

Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act), this action simultaneously 

approves local rules that regulate these 

emission sources and directs California 

to correct rule deficiencies. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective on February 25, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket 

number EPA–R09–OAR–2009–0475 for 

this action. The index to the docket is 

available electronically at 

www.regulations.gov and in hard copy 

at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, California. While all 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the index, some information may be 

publicly available only at the hard copy 

location (e.g., copyrighted material), 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: 

Nicole Law, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4126, law.nicole@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action 

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses 

III. EPA Action 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action 

On July 17, 2009 (74 FR 34704), EPA 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the following rules that 

were submitted for incorporation into 

the California SIP. 

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVAPCD .................................. 4401 Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil Production Wells ............................ 12/14/06 05/08/07 

SJVAPCD .................................. 4605 Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations ........ 09/20/07 03/07/08 

SJVAPCD .................................. 4684 Polyester Resin Operations ......................................................... 09/20/07 03/07/08 

We proposed a limited approval 

because we determined that these rules 

improve the SIP and are largely 

consistent with the relevant CAA 

requirements. We simultaneously 

proposed a limited disapproval because 

some rule provisions do not fully satisfy 

requirements of section 110 and part D 

of the Act. The deficiencies include the 

following: 

1. Rule 4401 authorizes the District to 

grant a waiver from SIP requirements, in 

section 6.2.4. 

2. SJVAPCD has not adequately 

demonstrated that Rule 4605 and Rule 

4684 implement RACT. 

Our proposed action contains more 

information on the basis for this 

rulemaking and on our evaluation of the 

submittal. 

II. Public Comments and EPA 

Responses 

EPA’s proposed action provided a 30- 

day public comment period. During this 

period, we received comments from the 

following party. 

1. Scott Nester, Director of Planning, 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District; letter dated and 

received August 17, 2009. 

After the close of the comment period, 

we also received comments from the 

following party. 

2. Sayed Sadredin, Executive 

Director/Air Pollution Control Officer of 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution 

Control District; letter dated August 27, 

2009 and received August 31, 2009. 

The comments and our responses are 

summarized below. Although we are not 

obligated to address comments 

submitted after the close of the 

comment period, we are addressing 

below both the District’s August 17 

comments and those comments in the 

District’s August 27 letter that pertain to 

the rules we are acting on today. 

SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment #1: The 

District stated that its staff has proposed 

to amend Rule 4684 to implement 

requirements in the September 2008 

Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) for 

fiberglass boat manufacturing materials. 

EPA Response: We appreciate 

SJVAPCD’s efforts to promptly address 

RACT requirements for sources covered 

by the 2008 CTG for Fiberglass Boat 

Manufacturing Materials (2008 CTG), 

but we are obligated to act at this time 

on the submitted version of Rule 4684. 

In addition, we note that Rule 4684 

should be revised to address RACT 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES


APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT August 18, 2011 C - 3 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3997 

1Technical Support Document For EPA’s Notice 

of Direct Final Rulemaking On Revisions to the 

California State Implementation Plan: EPA’s 

Analysis of San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District’s Rule 4684, Polyester 

Resin Operations, EPA Region IX, May 2009 (Rule 

4684 TSD), at pp. 4–9. 

2See 70 FR 71612 at 71655 (November 29, 2005) 

(Final Rule to Implement the 8-Hour Ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard—Phase 2); 

see also NRDC v. EPA, 571 F. 3d 1245, 1254 (DC 

Cir. 2009) (holding that EPA’s case-by-case 

approach to RACT ensures that ‘‘RACT 

determinations will reflect advances in 

technology’’). 

3See pg. 4–349 and 4–350 of SJVAPCD’s April 16, 

2009 RACT Demonstration for the District’s review 

of SCAQMD Rule 1162 and VCAPCD Rule 74.14. 

4See SCAQMD Rule 1162, amended July 11, 

2003. SCAQMD subsequently made other 

amendments to Rule 1162 that did not alter the 

monomer content limits. See SCAQMD Rule 1162 

amended July 9, 2004 and SCAQMD Rule 1162 

amended July 8, 2005. 

5See SCAQMD Rule 1162, amended May 13, 

1994. 

6See VCAPCD Rule 74.14, amended April 12, 

2005. 

requirements not only for sources 

covered by the 2008 CTG, but also for 

VOC major sources that are subject to 

Rule 4684 but not addressed by the 2008 

CTG. See 74 FR 34705. 

SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment #2: The 

District stated that EPA had commented 

that the VOC limits, emission control 

system efficiency, and application 

methods in existing Rule 4684 for nonfiberglass boat manufacturing facilities 

are less stringent than other air districts’ 

rules and, therefore, constitute RACT 

deficiencies. The District encouraged 

EPA to fully approve Rule 4684 because: 

(1) According to District staff research, 

no ozone nonattainment areas in other 

states have specific regulations on 

polyester resin operations, (2) the VOC 

limits and emission control 

requirements of Rule 4684 are 

consistent with the California Air 

Resources Board’s (CARB’s) 

‘‘Determination of Reasonably Available 

and Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology for Polyester Resin 

Operations,’’ which should define RACT 

requirements in the absence of a CTG 

for this category, and (3) although the 

limits in Rule 4684 are not identical to 

those in other California air districts’ 

rules, those rules have been recently 

amended and their limits are considered 

beyond RACT. 

EPA Response: The District’s 

characterization of the Rule 4684 

deficiencies identified in our proposed 

action is not entirely accurate. To 

clarify, we noted that Rule 4684 appears 

to apply to major VOC sources that are 

not covered by the 2008 CTG, and that 

the District had not demonstrated that 

the more stringent requirements for 

these types of sources identified in other 

California rules are not feasible in the 

San Joaquin Valley or otherwise 

adequately demonstrated that Rule 4684 

implements RACT for these major 

sources. 74 FR 34704 at 34705. 

As to the District’s specific arguments 

in support of full approval, we do not 

agree that these provide a basis for full 

approval. First, whether or not any other 

states with ozone nonattainment areas 

have RACT rules for polyester resin 

operations, SJVAPCD is required to have 

such rules under CAA § 182(b)(2) 

because it regulates facilities within this 

source category that are major sources of 

VOCs. As noted in the TSD for our 

proposed action, the RACT rules in 

three of four nearby districts that 

SJVAPCD reviewed as part of its 2009 

RACT SIP contain more stringent 

monomer content requirements and 

more stringent overall capture and 

control efficiency requirements than 

Rule 4684.1 The District has not 

demonstrated that these more stringent 

requirements are not reasonably 

achievable or that the requirements in 

Rule 4684 implement RACT for nonCTG major VOC sources in the San 

Joaquin Valley (i.e., sources other than 

fiberglass boat manufacturing facilities). 

Second, we do not agree with the 

District’s assertion that CARB’s 

‘‘Determination of Reasonably Available 

and Best Available Retrofit Control 

Technology for Polyester Resin 

Operations’’ (RACT and BARCT 

Guidance) defines RACT in the absence 

of a CTG for this source category. States 

are required to consider the latest 

information available in making RACT 

determinations and to provide 

supporting information with their RACT 

submissions to EPA.2 This is because 

RACT can change over time as new 

technology becomes available or the 

cost of technology decreases. 

Indeed, CARB’s RACT and BARCT 

Guidance is dated January 8, 1991, and 

since then several California districts 

near the SJVAPCD have revised their 

polyester resin rules to incorporate more 

stringent limits. The District has not 

supported its evaluation of Rule 4684 

with a demonstration that these more 

stringent requirements are not 

economically or technically feasible for 

major source polyester resin operations 

in the San Joaquin Valley. 

Finally, we note that the more 

stringent monomer content and overall 

capture and control efficiency 

requirements in the South Coast Air 

Quality Management District 

(SCAQMD) and the Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) 

polyester resin rules that SJVAPCD 

reviewed have been effective for many 

years.3 Specifically, the monomer 

content limits in section (c)(2)(A) of 

SCAQMD’s polyester resin rule (Rule 

1162) became effective in 2003,4 and the 

90% overall capture and control 

efficiency requirement in the rule has 

been effective for at least 15 years.5 The 

monomer content limits in VCAPCD’s 

polyester resin rule (Rule 74.14) and the 

90% overall capture and control 

efficiency requirement have been 

effective since 2005.6 As such, we do 

not believe the District has adequately 

supported its assertion that the limits in 

these rules are ‘‘beyond RACT.’’ 

SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment #3: The 

District stated that its staff will review 

the benefits and costs of ‘‘strengthening 

this rule beyond RACT in the context of 

an attainment plan control measure.’’ 

EPA Response: We appreciate the 

District’s efforts to strengthen these 

rules as part of its broader attainment 

goals, and we expect these efforts can 

proceed consistent with the CAA 

deadlines associated with today’s final 

action on Rule 4684. 

SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #1: 

SJVAPCD requested that we reflect on 

its positive working relationship with 

EPA and its record of accomplishments, 

and stated that its enclosed responses 

would address most of EPA’s concerns. 

The District stated that the San Joaquin 

Valley needs emission reductions as 

quickly as feasible and that it was, 

therefore, hesitant to ‘‘divert resources to 

unnecessary bureaucratic work 

associated with rulemaking projects that 

are not demonstrated to have significant 

potential for additional reductions or 

enforceability.’’ The District urged that 

its ‘‘efforts not be delayed or hampered, 

and that [the District] receive a full 

approval for [its] regulatory efforts.’’ 

EPA Response: We appreciate the 

District’s efforts to improve air quality 

in the San Joaquin Valley as 

expeditiously as possible. Our concerns, 

however, are based on CAA RACT 

requirements that the District is 

required to address in accordance with 

specified deadlines. These RACT 

requirements apply independent of the 

significance of the resulting emission 

reductions or other air quality 

improvement efforts. We discuss these 

requirements further below and in our 

proposal. 

SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #2: 

SJVAPCD acknowledged that EPA had 

proposed a limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Rule 4401 because of the 

provision that states that waiver 

requests are ‘‘deemed approved’’ by EPA 

if EPA does not object within 45 days. 

The District stated, however, that EPA 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES


APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT August 18, 2011 C - 4 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684
3998 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

7See ‘‘Title V Permit Review Protocol Agreement: 

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,’’ 

October 1998. 

8 If the permitting agency fails to adequately 

address EPA’s objection(s) within 90 days, title V 

authorizes EPA to issue or deny the title V permit. 

CAA § 505(b)(3); 40 CFR 70.8(c). The District also 

references SJVAPCD Rule 2520 (Federally 

Mandated Operating Permits), which implements 

title V requirements. These provisions related to the 

District’s title V operating permit program are not 

relevant to our action today. 

9See Guidance Document for Correcting Common 

VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies (A.K.A., The Little 

Bluebook), U.S. EPA Region IX, Revised August 21, 

2001, at pg. 17. 

should approve Rule 4401 for two 

reasons. First, the District stated that 

precedent for this language can be found 

in the October 1998 ‘‘Title V Review 

Protocol Agreement’’ between the 

District and EPA Region IX, which 

states that ‘‘During this period, the EPA 

may approve the district’s proposal 

either in writing, or by choosing not to 

provide written comments.’’ The district 

stated that this language is identical to 

the language in Section 6.2.4 of Rule 

4401, that Rule 2520 (Federally 

Mandated Operating Permits) also 

contains similar language, and that EPA 

had not objected to the requirements of 

Section 6.2.4 in Rule 4401 during the 

rulemaking process. Second, the District 

stated that ‘‘[w]hile the Clean Air Act 

may prohibit the District from requiring 

the EPA to take action, it does not 

preclude the EPA from agreeing to a 

reasonable timeframe in which to take 

action, as indicated by the referenced 

memo.’’ The District further explained 

that operators need timely notification 

of whether their waiver requests have 

been approved, due to the time needed 

to schedule and perform expensive and 

time-consuming source tests, and that 

Rule 4401 should take these needs into 

account. 

EPA Response: We disagree with the 

District’s assertion that the October 1998 

‘‘Title V Review Protocol Agreement’’ 

between the District and EPA (Title V 

Agreement) provides precedent for the 

language in Rule 4401. Title V of the 

CAA specifically authorizes EPA to 

object to a title V operating permit that 

is not in compliance with CAA 

applicable requirements within 45 days 

after receiving a copy of the proposed 

permit from the state/local permitting 

agency. CAA § 505(b)(1); 40 CFR 70.8(c). 

The District refers to language in the 

Title V Agreement that describes the 

process following EPA’s 45-day review 

period through which SJVAPCD will 

resolve title V objections that EPA has 

raised.7 In this context, where the 

District has timely submitted 

information adequately addressing 

EPA’s objections, EPA has agreed that 

the District may in some cases treat our 

silence as concurrence with the 

District’s revised proposal.8

The CAA does not establish any such 

process for state/local waivers to the 

requirements of a federally-approved 

SIP. To the contrary, section 110(i) of 

the Act specifically prohibits EPA and 

the States from taking any ‘‘action 

modifying any requirement of an 

applicable implementation plan * * * 

with respect to any stationary source’’ 

except as otherwise authorized by the 

Act. Section 6.2.4 of Rule 4401 

effectively allows the District to grant a 

waiver to federally-approved SIP 

requirements if EPA does not object 

within 45 days of receiving the District’s 

request for concurrence. Without a 

process that ensures that any such 

waiver is granted only upon EPA 

approval in accordance with CAA 

requirements, this provision is 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the Act and cannot be approved. 

We note that the District may address 

these concerns by providing explicit 

and replicable procedures within the 

rule that tightly define how the 

District’s discretion will be exercised to 

assure equivalent emission reductions.9

As to the District’s comment that EPA 

did not object to this provision during 

its local rulemaking process, we regret 

not identifying this issue earlier but 

note that our failure to do so does not 

remove our obligation to ensure full 

compliance with the CAA when taking 

formal action on SIP submittals. 

SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #3: 

SJVAPCD acknowledged that EPA had 

proposed a limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Rule 4605 because of 

concerns about certain VOC coating 

limits, but stated that EPA should 

approve Rule 4605 for two reasons. 

First, the District stated that its staff had 

compared the limits in Rule 4605 to the 

limits in EPA’s 1997 CTG for coating 

operations at aerospace facilities and in 

other California district rules, and found 

that (1) Rule 4605’s VOC limit for 

Sealant (Extrudable/Rollable/Brushable) 

is consistent with BAAQMD’s Rule 8– 

29, and (2) Rule 4605’s limit for Sealant 

(Fastener) is consistent with SCAQMD’s 

Rule 1124 and Ventura County Air 

Pollution Control District’s Rule 74.13. 

Second, the District stated that it plans 

to amend Rule 4605 during the first 

quarter of 2010 to incorporate the 

coating types and limits contained in 

the 1997 CTG, and that it would also 

consider the additional 

recommendations provided in EPA’s 

TSD in its next rule revision process. 

EPA Response: EPA’s 1997 CTG on 

Control of Volatile Organic Compound 

Emissions from Coating Operations at 

Aerospace Manufacturing and Rework 

Operations (1997 CTG) generally defines 

presumptive RACT for this activity 

nationwide. In our proposed action (74 

FR at 34705), we noted that the District 

had not adequately addressed 

recommendations in the 1997 CTG for 

19 coating categories. The District now 

identifies rules in neighboring districts 

that are consistent with Rule 4605 for 

two of these coating categories, but it 

fails to demonstrate that the CTG 

recommendations for those two 

categories are not reasonably achievable 

in the San Joaquin Valley. Moreover, the 

District fails to address the other 17 

coating categories for which the 1997 

CTG recommends specific limits. In 

order to satisfy CAA RACT 

requirements, the District must either 

demonstrate that Rule 4605 implements 

current-day RACT for all of these 

coating operations or certify, where 

appropriate, that certain coating 

operations do not occur in the San 

Joaquin Valley. 

As to the District’s statement that it 

plans to amend Rule 4605 during the 

first quarter of 2010 to incorporate the 

CTG recommendations and EPA’s 

additional recommendations, we 

appreciate these rule improvement 

efforts but note that we are obligated to 

act at this time on the submitted version 

of Rule 4605. 

SJVAPCD Aug. 27 Comment #4: The 

District acknowledged that EPA had 

proposed a limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Rule 4684 because of 

concerns about the resin and gel coat 

monomer content limits and capture 

and control efficiency requirements. 

The District stated, however, that EPA 

should fully approve the rule for two 

reasons. First, the District asserted that 

the rules in the other districts cited by 

EPA should be considered beyond 

RACT as those rules were recently 

adopted, and because there is no CTG 

for non-fiberglass boat manufacturing or 

general polyester resin fiberglass boat 

manufacturing. The District stated that 

‘‘EPA’s long-standing historical position 

is that in the absence of a CTG * * * 

the standards that have been 

successfully implemented in other 

districts or states [are] minimum RACT 

unless demonstrated that those 

standards are beyond RACT,’’ and that 

the District had made such a 

demonstration (that the other districts’ 

rules are beyond RACT) in its RACT 

analysis for Rule 4686. The District 

further stated that some of these rules 

were developed after SJVAPCD began 

developing Rule 4686 and, therefore, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES


APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT August 18, 2011 C - 5 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 3999 

‘‘could not be utilized in the Rule 4686 

development process.’’ 

Second, the District stated that 

although EPA is not calling out 

deficiencies related to the September 

2008 fiberglass boat manufacturing CTG, 

the District is in the process of 

amending Rule 4684 to incorporate the 

CTG recommendations and that rule 

adoption is scheduled for September 17, 

2009. 

EPA Response: First, we disagree with 

the District’s assertion that it has 

demonstrated that the more stringent 

limits in other districts’ rules are 

beyond RACT. See response to 

SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment #2, above. 

Second, we also disagree with the 

District’s statement that some of the 

more stringent rules in other districts 

were developed after the District had 

begun its Rule 4684 development 

process. The District adopted the 

version of Rule 4684 that we are acting 

on today in 2007, and the more stringent 

polyester resin rules that the District 

referenced in its 2009 RACT SIP were 

last modified in 2005 or earlier. See 

response to SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment 

#2, above. Finally, as to the District’s 

statement that it is in the process of 

amending Rule 4684 to incorporate the 

CTG recommendations, we appreciate 

the District’s ongoing rule improvement 

efforts and will evaluate those rule 

revisions when they are submitted to us 

for incorporation into the SIP. See 

response to SJVAPCD Aug. 17 Comment 

#1. 

III. EPA Action 

No comments were submitted that 

change our assessment of the rules as 

described in our proposed action. 

Therefore, as authorized in sections 

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 

finalizing a limited approval of the 

submitted rules. This action 

incorporates the submitted rules into 

the California SIP, including those 

provisions identified as deficient. As 

authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA 

is simultaneously finalizing a limited 

disapproval of the rules. As a result, 

sanctions will be imposed unless EPA 

approves subsequent SIP revisions that 

correct the rule deficiencies within 18 

months of the effective date of this 

action. These sanctions will be imposed 

under section 179 of the Act according 

to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must 

promulgate a federal implementation 

plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless 

we approve subsequent SIP revisions 

that correct the rule deficiencies within 

24 months of the effective date of this 

action. Note that the submitted rules 

have been adopted by the San Joaquin 

Valley Air Pollution Control District, 

and EPA’s final limited disapproval 

does not prevent the local agency from 

enforcing them. 

IV. 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 (RFA) 

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 and 

limited approvals/limited disapprovals 

under section 110 and subchapter I, part 

D of the Clean Air Act do not create any 

new requirements but simply approve 

requirements that the State is already 

imposing. Therefore, because this 

limited approval/limited disapproval 

action 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 

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility 

analysis would constitute Federal 

inquiry into the economic 

reasonableness of State action. The 

Clean Air Act 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 

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), 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 

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 

promulgated 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 approves 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 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES


APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT August 18, 2011 C - 6 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684
4000 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 16 / Tuesday, January 26, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government, as specified in 

Executive Order 13132, because it 

merely approves a State rule 

implementing a Federal standard, and 

does not alter the relationship or the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities established in the Clean 

Air Act. 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 final 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. 

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. Congressional Review Act 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this rule and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule 

will be effective on February 25, 2010. 

K. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by March 29, 2010. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this rule for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. This action may not 

be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements (see section 

307(b)(2)). 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Volatile organic 

compounds. 

Dated: December 11, 2009. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

■ Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220, is amended by 

adding paragraphs (c)(350)(i)(C)(2), 

(354)(i)(E)(11) and (354)(i)(E)(12) to read 

as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(350) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(C) * * * 

(2) Rule 4401, ‘‘Steam-Enhanced 

Crude Oil Production Wells,’’ adopted 

on December 14, 2006. 

* * * * * 

(354) * * * 

(i) * * * 

(E) * * * 

(11) Rule 4605, ‘‘Aerospace Assembly 

and Component Coating Operations,’’ 

adopted on September 20, 2007. 

(12) 4684, ‘‘Polyester Resin 

Operations,’’ adopted on September 20, 

2007. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2010–1385 Filed 1–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Federal Emergency Management 

Agency 

44 CFR Part 64 

[Docket ID FEMA–2008–0020; Internal 

Agency Docket No. FEMA–8113] 

Suspension of Community Eligibility 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency, DHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule identifies 

communities, where the sale of flood 

insurance has been authorized under 

the National Flood Insurance Program 

(NFIP), that are scheduled for 

suspension on the effective dates listed 

within this rule because of 

noncompliance with the floodplain 

management requirements of the 

program. If the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) receives 

documentation that the community has 

adopted the required floodplain 

management measures prior to the 

effective suspension date given in this 

rule, the suspension will not occur and 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with RULES


APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT August 18, 2011 C - 7 Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684
SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY UNIFIED AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT 

APPENDIX C: Federal Register Notice August 18, 2011 

Final Draft Staff Report with Appendices 

 For Proposed Amendments to Rule 4684

C-8

This page intentionally blank.