Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2011-0546-0008
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Revisions to California State Implementation Plan: San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
Posted Date: 2012-06-13T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 114 (Wednesday, June 13, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35327-35329]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-14421]

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

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).

[[Page 35328]]

                                            Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................            4682  Polystyrene, Polyethylene,        12/15/2011      02/23/2012
                                                     and Polypropylene Products
                                                     Manufacturing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.

[[Page 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