![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan; San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: November 20, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 223)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 65283-65285]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20no07-21]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-0638; FRL-8497-5]
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 to approve 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 flare operations at
facilities such as oil and chemical refineries. We are proposing to
approve a local rule regulating 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 December 20, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number [DOCKET
NUMBER], by one of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
2. E-mail: 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 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
[[Page 65284]]
hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at
either (415) 947-4111, or wamsley.jerry@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``We'', ``Us'',
and ``Our'' refer to the 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 revisions?
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
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date it
was 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............................. 4311 Flares................. 06/15/06 12/29/06
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 13, 2007, EPA found Rule 4311 met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V. SJVAPCD must meet these
criteria before formal EPA review.
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
On February 26, 2003, EPA approved a version of Rule 4311 and
incorporated it within the SIP; please see 68 FR 8835. California has
not made any intervening submittals of the rule.
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
VOCs and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) 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 and NOX emissions.
SJVAPCD Rule 4311 is designed to decrease VOC and NOX
emissions from industries such as refineries, unrecoverable gases from
oil wells, vented gases from blast furnaces, unused gases from coke
ovens, and gaseous wastes from chemical industries by requiring that
flares be operated in a prescribed manner. The June 15, 2006 revisions
to the rule set the applicability threshold for the rule at ten tons
per year potential to emit VOC or NOX and provide a
compliance schedule for facilities subject to the rule.
EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
the Rule 4311.
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
section 182(a)(2)), and must not relax existing requirements (see
sections 110(l) and 193). The SJVAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment
area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4311 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help 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,'' USEPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' USEPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe Rule 4311 is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD
has more information on our evaluation.
C. 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. We recommend that SJVAPCD reconsider the
utility of incorporating provisions such as those in South Coast Air
Quality Management District Rule 1118 and Bay Area Air Quality
Management District Rule 12-12 within Rule 4311 to aid their enforcing
of the rule, developing an accurate emissions inventory for these
sources, and minimizing excess emissions from flare activity to the
maximum extent practicable.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes Rule 4311 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 sufficient to cause us to reverse our
position, 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 Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and
Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive
Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that
this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 601, et seq.). Because this rule proposes to approve pre-
existing requirements under state law and does not impose any
additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 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).
This proposed rule also does not have tribal implications because
it will not
[[Page 65285]]
have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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, as specified by Executive Order 13175
(59 FR 22951, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does 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
(64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely proposes to approve 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. This proposed rule also is not
subject to Executive Order 13045 (Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This proposed rule does
not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compound.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.
Dated: November 2, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. E7-22656 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P