
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 230 (Thursday, November 29, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71109-71111]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-28826]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0267; FRL-9730-3]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the SJVUAPCD 
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This rule 
was proposed in the Federal Register on April 30, 2012 and concerns 
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from wine storage tanks. We 
are approving a local rule that regulates these emission sources under 
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on December 31, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2012-0267 for 
this action. Generally, documents in the docket for this action are 
available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov or in hard copy 
at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While 
all documents in the docket are listed at http://www.regulations.gov, 
some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy 
location (e.g., copyrighted material, large maps, multi-volume 
reports), and some may not be available in either location (e.g., 
confidential business information (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: Lily Wong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4114, wong.lily@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Proposed Action
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Proposed Action

    On April 30, 2012 (77 FR 25384), EPA proposed to approve the 
following rule into the California SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency                 Rule No.          Rule title           Adopted            Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..........................            4694   Wine Fermentation           12/15/05   11/18/11 (amended
                                                      and Storage Tanks.                     submittal as
                                                                                             adopted 08/18/11).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve this rule because we determined that it 
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action 
contains more information on the rule and our evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. We 
received comments from the following parties.
    1. Dan Belliveau, NohBell Corporation; letter dated and received 
May 30, 2012.
    2. Steven Colome, EcoPAS; email dated and received May 31, 2012. 
While these comments were received after the public comment period, EPA 
elected to add these comments to the docket and respond to the issues 
raised.
    The comments and our responses are summarized below.
    a. Comment: The commenters generally described their respective 
technologies and results to date to capture and control VOC emissions 
from the wine fermentation process. Both commenters stated that they 
believe their technologies represent reasonably available control 
technology (RACT) and believed this information should be considered in 
EPA's determination on RACT.
    Response: EPA defines RACT as the ``lowest emissions limitation 
that a particular source is capable of meeting by the application of 
control technology that is reasonably available considering

[[Page 71110]]

technological and economic feasibility.'' 44 FR 53761 (September 17, 
1979). EPA generally considers controls that are commonly used by a 
significant number of sources to be reasonably available and 
technologically and economically feasible. RACT differs from 
requirements for the more stringent lowest achievable emission rate 
(LAER) controls required for new and modified major sources in 
nonattainment areas. LAER is defined in CAA Section 171(3) and 40 CFR 
51.165(a)(1)(xiii) as ``the most stringent emissions limitation which 
is contained in the implementation plan of any State for such class or 
category of source, unless the owner or operator of the proposed source 
demonstrate that such limitations are not achievable; or * * * the most 
stringent emissions limit which is achieved in practice by such class 
or category of stationary sources.''
    Information provided by the commenters would help demonstrate that 
these two new and emerging technologies are technically feasible on 
wine tanks of a certain size. However, in order to meet EPA's criteria 
for RACT, the use of these technologies must be demonstrated in 
practice by a larger number of sources and at a broader range of tank 
capacities. In addition, we note that the commenters' current \1\ cost 
effectiveness estimates are higher than what is generally accepted for 
VOC RACT level controls. Therefore, while these new and emerging 
technologies have not been demonstrated to represent RACT at this time, 
they should be considered for sources where LAER is required by new 
source review regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While the commenters also believe that their cost 
effectiveness estimates would be significantly lowered (e.g., if the 
control system was scaled up and optimized, or if the potential 
commercial value of the captured ethanol was realized), we did not 
take these estimates into account at this time because these 
scenarios have not yet been demonstrated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, what constitutes RACT can change over time as 
technologies once considered beyond RACT become more economically 
feasible and demonstrated in practice more widely. As a result, 
SJVUAPCD should reevaluate these technologies when subsequent RACT 
demonstrations are required, such as in 2014, when SJVUAPCD may need to 
submit a RACT SIP analysis for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard.
    We also note that new and modified major sources in SJVUAPCD must 
demonstrate LAER in the permitting context, which California calls best 
available control technology (BACT). The initial steps in a BACT 
analysis are to identify all available technologies and eliminate those 
that are not technically feasible. Therefore, SJVUAPCD must consider 
these new technologies in all future required California BACT 
determinations for permitting wine fermentation tanks. EPA forwarded 
these comment letters to SJVUAPCD for consideration in their future 
BACT analyses.
    b. Comment: EcoPAS stated that EPA's final approval of this version 
of Rule 4694 would remove the fermentation emission provisions of Rule 
4694 from the SIP.
    Response: Currently, there is no version of Rule 4694 approved in 
the SIP. Therefore, EPA approval of the amended submittal of Rule 4694 
would not remove any provisions from the SIP.
    We believe the commenter is specifically concerned with SJVUAPCD's 
deletion of the fermentation provisions (e.g., sections 5.1, 6.1, 6.2, 
6.3, 6.5, 6.6, 7.0, and other supporting sections) in its amended 
submittal of Rule 4694. In EPA's Technical Support Document (TSD) which 
accompanied our proposed approval of Rule 4694, we described our 
concerns with the alternative compliance provisions, which only 
affected the fermentation provisions. Because of EPA's concerns, the 
District elected to withdraw from consideration for SIP approval the 
wine fermentation provisions, although the fermentation provisions 
remain in effect at the local level. The appropriate forum to raise the 
commenter's concerns would have been the District's process for 
amending the submittal of Rule 4694. EPA is only acting on SJVUAPCD's 
current SIP submittal. As discussed in our TSD, EPA's approval of Rule 
4694 without the fermentation provisions does not relax any SIP 
requirements or commitments.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rule 
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in 
section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving this rule into the 
California SIP.

IV. 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 disproportionate human health or environmental effects with 
practical, appropriate, 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.

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General

[[Page 71111]]

of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action 
and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 28, 2013. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of 
judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for 
judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness 
of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in 
proceedings to enforce its requirements (see section 307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: August 30, 2012.
Jared Blumenfeld,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(416) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (416) Specified portions of the following rule were submitted on 
November 18, 2011 by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 
(SJVUAPCD).
    (1) The following specified portions of SJVUAPCD Rule 4694, Wine 
Fermentation and Storage Tanks, adopted December 15, 2005:
    (i) Section 1.0 (Purpose), except for the words ``fermentation 
and'' and ``or achieve equivalent reductions from alternative emission 
sources'';
    (ii) Section 2.0 (Applicability), except for the words ``fermenting 
wine and/or'';
    (iii) Section 3.0 (Definitions), paragraphs 3.1--Air Pollution 
Control Officer (APCO), 3.2--Air Resources Board (ARB or CARB), 3.18--
Gas Leak, 3.19--Gas-Tight, 3.21--Must, 3.22--Operator, 3.27--Storage 
Tank, 3.29--Tank, 3.33--Volatile Organic Compound (VOC), 3.35--Wine, 
and 3.36--Winery;
    (iv) Section 4.0 (Exemptions), paragraph 4.2;
    (v) Section 5.0 (Requirements), paragraph 5.2--Storage Tanks; and
    (vi) Section 6.0 (Administrative Requirements), paragraph 6.4--
Monitoring and Recordkeeping, introductory text and paragraph 6.4.2.
    (ii) Additional materials.
    (A) California Air Resources Board (CARB)
    (1) CARB Executive Order S-11-024, November 18, 2011, adopting 
specified portions of SJVUAPCD Rule 4694 as a revision to the SIP.
    (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 
(SJVUAPCD)
    (1) SJVUAPCD Resolution No. 11-08-20, August 18, 2011, adopting 
specified portions of SJVUAPCD Rule 4694 as a revision to the SIP.

[FR Doc. 2012-28826 Filed 11-28-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


