[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34704-34707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17045]
========================================================================
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. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 34704]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2009-0475; FRL-8932-2]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
(SJVAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
steam-enhanced crude oil production well vents, aerospace coating
operations, and polyester resin operations. We are proposing action on
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 August 17, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2009-0475, 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: Sona Chilingaryan, EPA Region IX,
(415) 972-3368, [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 Submitted Rule Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
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 (CARB).
Table 1--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVAPCD................................. 4401 Steam-Enhanced Crude Oil 12/14/06 5/8/07
Production Wells.
SJVAPCD................................. 4605 Aerospace Assembly and 9/20/07 3/7/08
Component Coating Operations.
SJVAPCD................................. 4684 Polyester Resin Operations..... 9/20/07 3/7/08
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 23, 2007, EPA determined that the submittal for Rule 4401
met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must
be met before formal EPA review. On April 17, 2008, EPA determined that
the submittal for Rules 4605 and 4684 met the completeness criteria.
B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
We approved an earlier version of Rule 4401 into the SIP on June
22, 1998 (63 FR 33854). The SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on December 14, 2006. We approved an earlier version
of Rule 4605 into the SIP on November 14, 2003 (68 FR 64537). The
SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on September 20,
2007. We approved an earlier version of Rule 4684 into the SIP on June
26, 2002 (67 FR 42999). The SJVAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-
approved version on September 20, 2007.
[[Page 34705]]
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. The revisions to Rule
4401 narrow exemptions, add leak inspection and repair requirements,
enhance monitoring and recordkeeping requirements and improve rule
clarity. The revisions to Rule 4605 and Rule 4684 improve rule clarity
and strengthen the solvent cleaning provisions. EPA's technical support
documents (TSD) have more information about these rules.
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
section 182(a)(2) and (b)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements
(see sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVAPCD regulates an extreme (for
the 1-hour NAAQS) and serious (for the 8-hour NAAQS) ozone
nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rules 4401, 4605, and 4684
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. ``Surface Coating Operations at Aerospace Manufacturing & Rework
Operations,'' EPA-453/R-97-004, December 1997.
5. ``Control Techniques Guidelines for Fiberglass Boat
Manufacturing Materials,'' EPA-453/R-08-004, September 2008.
6. ``State Implementation Plans, General Preamble for the
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57
FR 13498, Apr. 16, 1992.
7. ``Preamble, Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National
Ambient Air Quality Standard,'' 70 FR 71612, Nov. 29, 2005.
8. Letter from William T. Harnett 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?
Rule 4401 improves the SIP by establishing more stringent work
practice requirements and by enhancing monitoring and recordkeeping
provisions. Rules 4605 and 4684 improve the SIP by clarifying
monitoring and recordkeeping provisions and establishing more stringent
emission limits for solvents. The rules are largely consistent with the
relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP
relaxations. 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.
1. Rule 4401 allows sources to request a waiver from an annual
source test requirement if approval is granted by the District, CARB,
and EPA. However, Rule 4401 states that a request for a waiver is
deemed approved by EPA if we do not object within 45 days of receipt.
The SJVAPCD cannot obligate EPA's decision making in this manner.
Section 6.2.4 effectively provides executive officer discretion in
conflict with CAA sections 110(a) and (i) and long-standing national
policy.
2. Rule 4605 does not include seventeen of the specialty VOC
coating limits provided in the 1997 CTG for coating operations at
aerospace facilities and has limits for two other specialty coating
categories that are higher than the applicable limits listed in the
CTG. SJVAPCD has not demonstrated that the CTG limits are infeasible in
San Joaquin Valley or otherwise adequately demonstrated that Rule 4605
implements RACT.
3. Rule 4684 contains limits that are not as stringent as
requirements in several other California districts. Fiberglass boat
manufacturing facilities subject to this rule are covered by EPA's 2008
CTG for Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials. As such, the District
is required to adopt and submit a SIP revision that satisfies RACT for
these sources by September 2009. In addition, Rule 4684 appears also to
apply to certain other sources that are not covered by the CTG but that
emit major amounts of VOCs. These sources are also subject to RACT
because they are major sources of ozone precursors. The District has
not demonstrated that the more stringent monomer content requirements
and capture and control device requirements in other California rules
are infeasible in San Joaquin Valley or otherwise adequately
demonstrated that Rule 4684 meets RACT.
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules
The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that we recommended for
the next time the local agency modifies the rule.
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rules to improve the SIP.
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into
the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This
approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rules under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval
is finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule
deficiencies within 18 months of the disapproval. These sanctions would
be imposed according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also
trigger the two year clock for the Federal implementation plan (FIP)
requirement under section 110(c). Note that the submitted rules have
been adopted by the SJVAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would
not prevent the local agency from enforcing it.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited 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).
[[Page 34706]]
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 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 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 approval 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
approve 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 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 proposed 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.
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 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.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping
[[Page 34707]]
requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E9-17045 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P