[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 1, 2006)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 5172-5174]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-894]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-0557a; FRL-8025-2]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura 
County Air Pollution Control District, Yolo-Solano Air Quality 
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) and Yolo-Solano 
Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) portion of the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions from polyester resin material use 
operations and organic liquid chemical storage and transfer operations. 
We are approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under 
the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 3, 2006 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 3, 2006. If we receive 
such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will not take 
effect.

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: [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: Jerald S. Wamsley, EPA Region IX, at 
either (415) 947-4111, or [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. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they 
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB).

[[Page 5173]]



                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title             Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCAPCD................................           74.14  Polyester Resin Material        04/12/05        07/15/05
                                                         Operations.
YSAQMD................................            2.21  Organic Liquid Storage &        09/14/05        10/20/05
                                                         Transfer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On August 18, 2005 and November 22, 2005, respectively, EPA found 
that VCAPCD Rule 74.14 and YSAQMD Rule 2.21 met the completeness 
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. The state's submittal must meet 
these criteria before EPA's formal review can begin.

B. Are there other versions of these rules?

    We approved previous versions of both rules into the SIP. VCAPCD 
Rule 74.14 was approved and incorporated into the SIP on July 25, 1996 
(see 61 Federal Register (FR) 38571). We gave a limited approval and 
limited disapproval to YSAQMD Rule 2.21 when incorporating it into the 
SIP on January 22, 2004 (see 69 FR 3012). There have been no 
intervening submittals of these rules since we acted on these prior 
versions.

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. VCAPCD Rule 74.14 
sets emission, formulation, work practice requirements for operations 
using polyester resins to fabricate, rework, repair or touch-up 
products for commercial, industrial, or military use. YSAQMD Rule 2.21 
sets vapor pressure containment and control requirements for operations 
that store and transfer organic liquid chemicals. EPA's technical 
support document (TSD) has 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 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and 
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). 
Both VCAPCD and YSAQMD regulate a 1-hour ozone nonattainment area (see 
40 CFR part 81), so each rule must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we use to help evaluate specific 
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. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid 
Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-78-047, USEPA, 
December 1978;
    5. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Storage of 
Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036, USEPA, 
December 1977; and,
    6. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Gasoline Tank 
Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems,'' EPA-450/2-78-051, USEPA, 
December 1978.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. On 
January 22, 2004, we gave YSAQMD Rule 2.21 a limited approval and 
limited disapproval because it violated EPA's excess emissions policy 
and contained elements of executive officer's discretion, an 
enforceability issue. The present submittal corrected these 
deficiencies by incorporating new provisions consistent with EPA's 
excess emissions policy during preventative maintenance activities and 
by deleting the provisions of the rule allowing executive officer 
discretion. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation of each 
rule.

C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSD for VCAPCD 74.14 and YSAQMD Rule 2.21 describe rule 
revisions that do not affect EPA's current action but are recommended 
for the next time the local agencies modify the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we 
receive adverse comments by March 3, 2006, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on April 3, 2006. This will incorporate these 
rules into the federally enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
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 action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this 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 approves 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

[[Page 5174]]

significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not 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 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. This 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 is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submittals, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Given this role, absent a prior existing requirement for the State to 
use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submittal for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submittal, 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 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.).
    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 of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule 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 April 3, 2006. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule 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: December 22, 2005.
Jane Diamond,
Acting for Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
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 paragraphs (c)(337)(i)(B) and 
(c)(342) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (337) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 74.14, adopted on November 24, 1987 and revised on April 
12, 2005.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (342) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on October 20, 2005, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 2.21, adopted on March 23, 1994 and revised on September 
14, 2005.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 06-894 Filed 1-31-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P