

[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 (65 
FR 67249, 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
