Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 35327 

line. EPA has determined that this SIP 

revision complies with the Clean Air 

Act and EPA regulations and is 

consistent with EPA policies. This 

action is being taken under section 110 

of the Act. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before July 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to 

Ms. Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Comments 

may also be submitted electronically of 

through hand delivery/courier by 

following the detailed instructions in 

the Addresses section of the direct final 

rule located in the rules section of this 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Mohr, Air Permits Section (6PD– 

R), Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 6, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 

1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733, 

telephone (214) 665–7289; fax number 

(214) 665–6762; email address 

mohr.ashley@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

final rules section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

SIP submittal as a direct final rule 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no relevant adverse comments 

are received in response to this action, 

no further activity is contemplated. If 

EPA receives relevant adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. 

For additional information, see the 

direct final rule which is located in the 

rules section of this Federal Register. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 30, 2012. 

Samuel Coleman, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA 

Region 6. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14156 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2011–0546; FRL–9685–8] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from the 

manufacture of polystyrene, 

polyethylene, and polypropylene 

products. We are approving a local rule 

that regulates these emission sources 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

July 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2011–0546, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: 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 www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Rynda Kay, EPA Region IX, (415) 947– 

4118, Kay.Rynda@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 revision? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA Recommendations To Further 

Improve the Rule 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this 

proposal with the date that it was 

adopted by the local air agency and 

submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
35328 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—SUBMITTED RULES

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted 

SJVUAPCD ....... 4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene, and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing ..... 12/15/2011 02/23/2012 

On March 13, 2012, EPA determined 

that the submittal for SJVUAPCD Rule 

4682 met the completeness criteria in 40 

CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be 

met before formal EPA review. 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

We approved an earlier version of 

Rule 4682 into the SIP on June 13, 1995 

(60 FR 31086). The SJVUAPCD adopted 

revisions to the SIP-approved version on 

September 20, 2007 and CARB 

submitted them to us on March 7, 2008. 

On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of the 2007 version of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682. However, the 

2011 version of the rule superseded the 

2007 version, and we do not intend to 

finalize action on the 2007 version. 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revision? 

VOCs help produce ground-level 

ozone and smog, which harm human 

health and the environment. Section 

110(a) of the CAA requires States to 

submit regulations that control VOC 

emissions. Rule 4682 was designed to 

reduce emissions of VOCs from the 

manufacturing, processing and storage 

of products composed of polystyrene, 

polyethylene, and 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 section 110(a) of the 

Act), must require Reasonably Available 

Control Technology (RACT) for each 

category of sources covered by a Control 

Techniques Guidelines (CTG) document 

as well as each major source in 

nonattainment areas (see sections 

182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax 

existing requirements (see sections 

110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD 

regulates an ozone nonattainment area 

(see 40 CFR part 81), 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. ‘‘Averaging Times for Compliance 

With VOC Emission Limits—SIP 

Revision Policy,’’ memorandum from 

John R. O’Connor, OAQPS, dated 

January 20, 1984. 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

On July 15, 2011 (76 FR 41745), we 

proposed a limited approval and limited 

disapproval of a previous version of 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4682. We determined 

that the rule largely fulfills the relevant 

criteria summarized above. The rule 

improves the SIP by clarifying language, 

adding definitions, and adding control 

requirements. The rule also improves 

the SIP by adding requirements for 

compliance plans, record keeping, and 

testing. The rule is generally clear and 

contains appropriate monitoring, 

reporting, and recordkeeping 

requirements to ensure that emission 

limits are adequately enforceable. We 

found 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. While we found 

the rule largely fulfilled relevant Clean 

Air Act 110 and Part D requirements, we 

identified one deficiency. 

The rule established 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. The District 

revised the rule and added supporting 

documentation to address the 

deficiency. 

The District identified two major 

processes covered by Rule 4682, 

extrusion foam and expanded 

polystyrene molding production, and 

split the rule requirements by process 

type. Both processes are still subject to 

an emission limit of 2.4 pounds of VOC 

per 100 pounds of total material 

processed, calculated over a monthly 

period. Expandable polystyrene 

molding facilities, however, are now 

subject to an additional emission limit 

of 3.4 pounds of VOC per 100 pounds 

of total material processed, calculated 

daily. Based on the evaluation of the 

revision, we propose that Rule 4682 is 

consistent with RACT and the criteria 

for approving averaging times exceeding 

24 hours. The TSD has detailed 

information on our evaluation. 

On January 10, 2012, EPA partially 

approved and partially disapproved the 

RACT SIP submitted by California on 

June 18, 2009 for the SJV extreme ozone 

nonattainment area (2009 RACT SIP), 

based in part on our conclusion that the 

State had not fully satisfied CAA section 

182 RACT requirements for polystyrene 

manufacturing operations. See 77 FR 

1417, 1425 (January 10, 2012). Final 

approval of Rule 4682 would satisfy 

California’s obligation to implement 

RACT under CAA section 182 for this 

source category for the 1-hour ozone 

and 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 

thereby terminate all CAA sanction and 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 

implications of our RACT SIP action as 

it relates to polystyrene manufacturing. 

C. 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 but are not currently the basis for 

rule disapproval. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

Because EPA believes the submitted 

rule fulfills all relevant requirements, 

we are proposing to fully approve it as 

described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. 

We will accept comments from the 

public on this proposal for the next 30 

days. Unless we receive convincing new 

information during the comment period, 

we intend to publish a final approval 

action that will incorporate this rule 

into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 13, 2012 / Proposed Rules 35329 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely proposes to approve State law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by State law. For 

that reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address 

disproportionate human health or 

environmental effects with practical, 

appropriate, and legally permissible 

methods under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this proposed action does 

not have tribal implications as specified 

by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Ozone, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: May 25, 2012. 

Jared Blumenfeld, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

[FR Doc. 2012–14421 Filed 6–12–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0359; FRL–9685–9] 

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 to approve 

revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 

revisions concern volatile organic 

compound (VOC) emissions from crude 

oil production sumps and refinery 

wastewater separators. We are 

approving local rules that regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the 

Act). We are taking comments on this 

proposal and plan to follow with a final 

action. 

DATES: Any comments must arrive by 

July 13, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0359, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: 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 www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of these rules? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rules and rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action. 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rules? 

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the rules. 

D. Public comment and final action. 

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rules did the state submit? 

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by 

this proposal with the dates that they 

were amended by the local air agency 

and submitted by the California Air 

Resources Board (CARB). 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1