[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 193 (Monday, October 5, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62687-62689]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-20848]



[[Page 62687]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R09-OAR-2020-0364; FRL-10014-67-Region 9]


Air Plan Approval; California; San Diego Air Pollution Control 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to 
approve a revision to the San Diego Air Pollution Control District 
(SDAPCD or ``District'') portion of the California State Implementation 
Plan (SIP). This revision concerns the regulation of emissions of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from large coating operations for 
wood products. We are proposing to approve the rescission of a local 
rule from the California SIP that is no longer needed to regulate these 
emission sources under the Clean Air Act (CAA or the ``Act''). We are 
taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final 
action.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 4, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-
OAR-2020-0364 at https://www.regulations.gov. For comments submitted at 
Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting 
comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from 
Regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public 
docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information the 
disclosure of which is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions 
(audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The 
written comment is considered the official comment and should include 
discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not 
consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary 
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For 
additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in 
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public 
comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and 
general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. If you need assistance in a 
language other than English, or if you are a person with disabilities 
who needs a reasonable accommodation at no cost to you, please contact 
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Schwartz, EPA Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne St., San Francisco, CA 94105. By phone: (415) 972-3286 or by 
email at [email protected].

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 repeal?
    B. What was the purpose of the SIP-approved rule, and what is 
the purpose of the State's rescission request?
II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?
    B. Does the rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Proposed Action
III. Incorporation by Reference
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rule did the State repeal?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that it was adopted by the SDAPCD and approved by the EPA. SDAPCD 
repealed this rule from its local rulebook on June 27, 2012, and, in a 
letter to the California Air Resources Board (CARB) dated July 24, 
2012, the District requested that CARB petition the EPA to repeal the 
rule from the California SIP.\1\ On March 4, 2015, CARB submitted a 
formal request to the EPA requesting that the EPA rescind SDAPCD Rule 
67.11.1 from the SIP.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Letter and attachments dated July 24, 2012, from Robert 
Reider (for Rosa Marie S. Abreu, Assistant Director, SDAPCD), to 
Michael J. Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, Program 
Evaluation Branch, Stationary Source Division, ARB, ``Submittal and 
Repeal for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendments to Rule 
67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations. Repeal of Rule 67.11.1--
Large Coating Operations for Wood Products.''
    \2\ Letter dated March 4, 2015, from Richard Corey, Executive 
Officer, California Air Resources Board, to Jared Blumenfeld, 
Regional Administrator, EPA Region IX, Request to Rescind District 
Rule 67.11.1 from the CA SIP.

                          Table 1--Rule for Which Rescission From the Sip Is Requested
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   SIP approval
           Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title               Adopted          date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SDAPCD............................         67.11.1  Large Coating Operations for      09/25/2002      06/05/2003
                                                     Wood Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On September 4, 2015, the submittal for the rescission of the 
SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 was deemed by operation of law to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met 
before formal EPA review.

B. What was the purpose of the SIP-approved rule, and what is the 
purpose of the State's rescission request?

    Emissions of VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level 
ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the 
environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit 
regulations that control VOC emissions. Rule 67.11.1 was adopted to 
meet reasonably available control technology (RACT) requirements under 
CAA section 182. The purpose of Rule 67.11.1 was to limit VOC emissions 
from wood products coating operations, including emissions from 
equipment cleaning, that are greater than or equal to 25 tons per 
calendar year. The SDAPCD adopted, and retains in its rulebook, another 
SIP-approved rule, Rule 67.11 \3\ to regulate this source category. 
Rule 67.11 is as stringent as or more stringent than Rule 67.11.1. As 
noted in a July 24, 2012 letter from the SDAPCD to CARB, the State is 
seeking to rescind Rule 67.11.1 from the SIP, based on its 
determination that Rule 67.11.1 ``became duplicative of Rule 67.11 
standards that took effect in 2005 . . . and Rule 67.11.1 became 
further obsolete upon the Board's adoption of the amendments to Rule 
67.11 on June 27, 2012.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The EPA approved SDAPCD Rule 67.11 into the California SIP 
on April 11, 2013. 78 FR 21538.
    \4\ Letter and attachments dated July 24, 2012, from Robert 
Reider (for Rosa Marie S. Abreu, Assistant Director, SDAPCD), to 
Michael J. Guzzetta, Manager, Rule Evaluation Section, Program 
Evaluation Branch, Stationary Source Division, ARB, ``Submittal and 
Repeal for State Implementation Plan (SIP) Amendments to Rule 
67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations. Repeal of Rule 67.11.1--
Large Coating Operations for Wood Products.''

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

[[Page 62688]]

    The EPA's technical support document (TSD) for our proposed rule 
action has more information about both of these rules and the State's 
request that Rule 67.11.1 be rescinded from the California SIP.

II. The EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is the EPA evaluating the request for rescission?

    Once a rule has been approved as part of a SIP, the rescission of 
that rule from the SIP constitutes a SIP revision. To approve such a 
revision, the EPA must determine whether the revision meets relevant 
CAA criteria for stringency, and complies with restrictions on 
relaxation of SIP measures under CAA section 110(l), and the General 
Savings Clause in CAA section 193 for SIP-approved control requirements 
in effect before November 15, 1990.
    Stringency: Generally, SIP rules must require RACT for each 
category of sources covered by a Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) 
document as well as each major source of VOCs in ozone nonattainment 
areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The 
SDAPCD is designated as an ozone nonattainment area classified as 
Serious for the 2008 8-hour national ambient air quality standards 
(NAAQS), and was designated as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS on 
June 4, 2018.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ See 40 CFR 81.305; 83 FR 25776.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Plan Revisions: States must demonstrate that SIP revisions would 
not interfere with attainment, reasonable further progress (RFP) or any 
other applicable requirement of the CAA under the provisions of CAA 
section 110(l). Therefore, consistent with CAA section 110(l) 
requirements, SDAPCD must demonstrate that the rescission of Rule 
67.11.1 from the SIP would not interfere with attainment and RFP of the 
NAAQS or any other applicable CAA requirement.
    General Savings Clause: CAA section 193 prohibits the modification 
of any control requirement in effect, or required to be adopted by an 
order, settlement agreement or plan in effect before November 15, 1990, 
in areas designated as nonattainment for an air pollutant unless the 
modification ensures equivalent or greater emission reductions of the 
relevant pollutant.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to evaluate 
enforceability, revision/relaxation and rule stringency requirements 
for the applicable criteria pollutants include the following:
    1. ``State Implementation Plans; General Preamble for the 
Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,'' 57 
FR 13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992).
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, revised January 11, 
1990).
    3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule 
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
    4. ``Control Techniques Guidelines: Control of Volatile Organic 
Compound Emissions from Wood Furniture Manufacturing Operations.'' EPA 
453/R-96-007, April 1996.

B. Does the rule rescission meet the evaluation criteria?

    We have concluded that SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 is appropriate for 
rescission, given that the wood furniture manufacturing source category 
continues to be regulated by the SDAPCD's Rule 67.11, which has been 
approved by the EPA into the California SIP, and which we have 
determined is as stringent as, or more stringent than Rule 67.11.1, as 
detailed in the TSD supporting this proposed rule action.\6\ Therefore, 
we have determined that the rescission of this rule will not have any 
adverse impact on SIP requirements for RFP or attainment, or otherwise 
interfere with any RACT requirements under CAA section 182, or any 
other applicable requirements of the CAA. The EPA's TSD contains 
additional details about our evaluation. Lastly, we note that Rule 
67.11.1 was SIP-approved post-1990; therefore, CAA section 193 does not 
apply to this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See also Technical Support Document for EPA's Notice of 
Direct Final Rulemaking for the California State Implementation 
Plan, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, Rule 67.11, 
Wood Products Coating Operations, United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX Air Division. Adrianne Borgia, February 
2013; SDAPCD, CARB Rule Evaluation Form, Rule 67.11, adopted 6/27/
2012, submitted 7/25/2012; San Diego Air Pollution Control Board, 
Minute Order No. 1, Notice of Public Hearing, ``Adoption of 
Amendments to Rule 67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations, and 
Repeal of Rule 67.11.1--Large Coating Operations for Wood 
Products,'' June 27, 2012; SDAPCD, Socioeconomic Impact Assessment, 
Proposed Amended Rule 67.11--Wood Products Coating Operations, 
August 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Public Comment and Proposed Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to 
approve the rescission of Rule 67.11.1 from the San Diego portion of 
the California SIP because it is no longer needed to meet any CAA 
requirement and because rescission would not interfere with RFP or 
attainment of any of the NAAQS. We will accept comments from the public 
on this proposal until November 4, 2020. If we take final action to 
approve the rule rescission, our final action will rescind this rule 
from the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Incorporation by Reference

    In this document, the EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text 
that includes incorporation by reference. The EPA is proposing to 
remove SDAPCD Rule 67.11.1 as described in Table 1 of this preamble 
from the California State Implementation Plan, which is incorporated by 
reference in accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR part 51.

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, the EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 
Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law 
as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional 
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this 
proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 3, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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

[[Page 62689]]

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 the 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe 
has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 
Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not 
impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal 
law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 
2000).

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.

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

    Dated: September 16, 2020.
John Busterud,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2020-20848 Filed 10-2-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P