[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 108 (Monday, June 8, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27084-27085]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13331]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 108 / Monday, June 8, 2009 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 27084]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0296; FRL-8914-3]
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 organic solvent cleaning
and degreasing operations. 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 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0296, by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: [email protected].
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 e-mail 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: The index to the docket for this action is 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 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, [email protected].
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 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 adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board.
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD.................................. 4662 Organic Solvent Degreasing 09/20/07 03/07/08
Operations.
SJVUAPCD.................................. 4663 Organic Solvent Cleaning, 09/20/07 03/07/08
Storage, and Disposal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2008, EPA determined that these rule submittals 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 These Rules?
We approved versions of Rules 4662 and 4663 into the SIP on July
27, 2002. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
adopted revisions to the SIP-approved rules on September 20, 2007 and
CARB submitted these to us on March 7, 2008. CARB has not submitted any
other revisions to these rules since 2002.
C. What Is the Purpose of the Rule Revisions?
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. The revised rules
limit VOC emissions from organic solvent degreasing operations, organic
solvent cleaning and from the storage and disposal of solvents and
waste solvent materials. The most significant changes in the rules are
reductions of the VOC limits on organic solvents to 25 grams of VOC per
liter solvent. EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) have more
information about these rules.
[[Page 27085]]
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
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 San Joaquin Valley
Unified Air Pollution Control District regulates an ozone nonattainment
area for both the 1-hr and the 8-hr ozone standard (see 40 CFR part
81), so Rules 4662 and 4663 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal
Cleaning,'' EPA-450/2-77-022, November 1977.
5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Industrial Cleaning
Solvents,'' EPA-453/R-06-001, September 2006.
6. ``Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations,'' CARB,
July 18, 1991.
7. ``Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration
for Ozone State Implementation Plans (SIP)'' SJVAPCD, April 16, 2009.
8. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Amendments of 1990,'' 57 FR
13498 (April 16, 1992).
9. ``Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard'' 70 FR 71612 (November 29, 2005).
10. Letter from William T. Hartnett to Regional Air Division
Directors, ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonable Available Control Technology
(RACT) Questions and Answers,'' May 18, 2006.
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have more information on our evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the Rules.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted rules fulfill all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve them 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 these rules 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.
Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by State law. For that reason, this 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, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, this rule 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 21, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-13331 Filed 6-5-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P