[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 172 (Tuesday, September 8, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 46044-46047]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-21550]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0573; FRL-8953-6]
Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revisions, South Coast
Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove a revision to the South Coast
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning volatile organic compound
(VOC) emissions from polymeric foam manufacturing operations. We are
proposing action on a local rule that regulates these emission sources
under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are
taking
[[Page 46045]]
comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by October 8, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0573, 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: Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4115, [email protected].
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?
Table 1 lists the rule proposed for disapproval with the date that
it was adopted and submitted.
Table 1--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.................................. 1175 Control of Emissions from the 09/07/07 03/07/08
Manufacturing of Polymeric
Cellular (Foam) Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 17, 2008, we determined that the rule submittal in Table 1
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 a previous version of Rule 1175 into the SIP on August
25, 1994. Please see 57 FR 43751. There have been no subsequent and
intervening submittals of Rule 1175.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted 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. Rule 1175 was
designed to reduce VOCs, Chlorofluorocarbon (CFC), and methylene
cloride emissions from expanded polystyrene (EPS) foam molders, direct
injection polystyrene foam extrusion, polyurethane, isocyanurate and
phenolic foam manufacturing operations. The District amended the Rule
in order to provide expandable polystyrene molding operations with an
additional compliance option.
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 SCAQMD regulates an
area classified as severe nonattainment for ozone (see 40 CFR part 81),
so Rule 1175 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate
enforceability and RACT requirements 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. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
Rule provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are
summarized below and discussed further in the TSD.
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
These provisions do not satisfy the requirements of section 110 and
part D of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision. We
propose to disapprove the SIP revision based on the following
deficiencies:
1. The rule must require demonstration, through source testing
approved in writing by the Executive
[[Page 46046]]
Officer, that the systems and techniques in place at a facility achieve
93% collection and reduction of emissions for sources complying with
paragraph (c)(4)(B)(iii).
2. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and
parameters needed to achieve 93% control to comply with paragraph
(c)(4)(B)(iii) must be clearly defined and enforceable through a
federally enforceable permit such as a Title V operating permit. Rule
1175 should also be revised where possible to identify these
parameters.
3. The rule must clarify that all operational techniques and
parameters needed to achieve 90% collection and 95% destruction to
comply with paragraphs (c)(4)(B)(i) and (ii) must be clearly defined
and enforceable through a federally enforceable permit such as a Title
V operating permit. Rule 1175 should also be revised where possible to
identify these parameters.
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the rules.
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the Act, we are proposing a
disapproval of the submitted SCAQMD Rule 1175. If finalized, this
action would retain the existing SIP rule in the SIP. There are no
sanction or FIP implications with this action pursuant to Clean Air Act
Section 179, as this is not a required Clean Air Act submittal.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed 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 (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 disapprovals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply disapprove requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval 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 cost-effective 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 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
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 disapproves 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 proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It
will not
[[Page 46047]]
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 disapproves 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.
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: August 21, 2009.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-21550 Filed 9-4-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P