83 FR 22908 - Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 96 (May 17, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 96 (May 17, 2018)
| Page Range | 22908-22913 | |
| FR Document | 2018-10571 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 96 (Thursday, May 17, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 22908-22913] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-10571] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R09-OAR-2018-0272; FRL-9978-17--Region 9] Air Plan Approval; California; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District; Reasonably Available Control Technology Demonstration AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD or ``District'') portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP), which applies to the San Joaquin Valley of California (``Valley''). These revisions concern the District's demonstration regarding Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). We are also proposing to approve a public draft version of SJVUAPCD's supplement to its 2014 RACT SIP demonstration, which contains relevant permit conditions for J.R. Simplot's Nitric Acid plant in Helm, California (CA) and negative declarations where the District concludes it has no sources subject to certain Control Techniques Guidelines (CTG) documents. We are proposing action on local SIP revisions 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: Any comments must arrive by June 18, 2018. [[Page 22909]] ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09- OAR-2018-0272 at https://www.regulations.gov/, or via email to Stanley Tong, at [email protected]. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be removed or edited from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, 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 whose disclosure 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 http://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122, [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 documents did the State submit? B. Are there other versions of these documents? C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents? II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents? B. Do the submitted documents 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 documents did the State submit? On June 19, 2014, the SJVUAPCD adopted the ``2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Demonstration for the 8-Hour Ozone State Implementation Plan (SIP)'' (``2014 RACT SIP''), and on July 18, 2014, the California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted it to the EPA for approval as a revision to the California SIP. On January 18, 2015, the submittal of the 2014 RACT SIP was deemed complete by operation of law. On May 4, 2018, CARB transmitted the District's public draft version of relevant permit conditions in a permit to operate for J.R. Simplot's Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA and negative declarations for several CTG source categories, along with a request for parallel processing.\1\ The District plans to adopt negative declarations for CTGs covering magnetic wire; synthesized pharmaceutical products; pneumatic rubber tires; leaks from synthetic organic chemical polymer manufacturing industry (SOCMI) equipment; high-density polyethylene, polypropylene and polyester resins; air oxidation processes in SOCMI; reactor processes and distillation operations in SOCMI; and surface coating operations at shipbuilding and ship repair facilities.\2\ As noted in footnote 1 of this document, under our parallel processing procedure, the EPA proposes action on a public draft version of a SIP revision but will take final action only after the final version is adopted and submitted to the EPA for approval. In this instance, we are proposing action based on the public draft version of the ``Supplement to the 2014 Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) State Implementation Plan (SIP) for the 2008 8-hour Ozone Standard'' (``Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP'') submitted by CARB on May 4, 2018, and will not take final action until the final version of the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP is adopted and submitted to the EPA. CARB's May 4, 2018 letter indicates that the District Board is scheduled to consider approval of the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP on June 21, 2018, and if it is approved, CARB will submit the final package to the EPA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Under the EPA's ``parallel processing'' procedure, the EPA proposes rulemaking action concurrently with the state's proposed rulemaking. If the state's proposed rule is changed, the EPA will evaluate that subsequent change and may publish another notice of proposed rulemaking. If no significant change is made, the EPA will publish a final rulemaking on the rule after responding to any submitted comments. Final rulemaking action by the EPA will occur only after the rule has been fully adopted by California and submitted formally to the EPA for incorporation into the SIP. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. See also https://www3.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/aqmguide/collection/cp2_old/19921028_calcagni_sip_redesignation_requirements(alt).pdf. \2\ The SJVUAPCD's Governing Board is scheduled to consider adopting the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, including relevant permit conditions in a permit to operate for J.R. Simplot's Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA and several negative declarations, on June 21, 2018. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also included with the District's 2014 RACT SIP submittal package was a copy of its RACT demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard ``2009 RACT SIP.'' On June 16, 2016, the SJVUAPCD adopted the ``2016 Ozone Plan for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone Standard'' (``2016 Ozone Plan''), and on August 24, 2016, CARB submitted it to the EPA for approval as a revision to the California SIP. Chapter 3.4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan states that ``the District updated the RACT evaluation and included VOC sources in the evaluation in Appendix C.'' Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan, which is titled, ``Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluations,'' includes evaluations of individual rules for RACT. On February 24, 2017, the submittal of the 2016 Ozone Plan was deemed complete by operation of law.\3\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ We are only proposing action on Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan in order to demonstrate VOC RACT for all applicable sources for the 2008 NAAQS. We will take action on the remainder of the 2016 Ozone Plan in a separate action. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- B. Are there other versions of these documents? There are no previous versions of the documents described above in the SJVUAPCD portion of the California SIP for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. C. What is the purpose of the submitted documents? Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX ) together produce 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 and NOX emissions. Sections 182(b)(2) and (f) require that SIPs for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above implement RACT for any source covered by a CTG document and for any major source of VOCs or NOX . The SJVUAPCD is subject to this requirement because it regulates an ozone nonattainment area classified as an Extreme ozone nonattainment area for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.\4\ Therefore, the SJVUAPCD must, at a minimum, adopt RACT- level controls for all sources covered by a CTG document and for all major non-CTG sources of VOCs or NOX within the nonattainment area that it regulates. Any stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs or NOX is a major stationary source in an Extreme ozone [[Page 22910]] nonattainment area (CAA section 182(e), (f), and 302(j)). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 40 CFR 81.305; 77 FR 30088 (May 21, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Section III.D of the preamble to the EPA's final rule to implement the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, March 6, 2015) discusses RACT requirements. It states in part that RACT SIPs must contain adopted RACT regulations, certifications where appropriate that existing provisions are RACT, and/or negative declarations that no sources in the nonattainment area are covered by a specific CTG source category, and that states must submit appropriate supporting information for their RACT submissions as described in the EPA's implementation rule for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264, at 12278 (March 5, 2015) and 70 FR 71612, at 71652 (November 29, 2005). SJVUAPCD's 2014 RACT SIP contains the District's demonstration that its NOX rules implement RACT and contains a review of major stationary sources of NOX that emit or have the potential to emit at least 10 tpy of NOX. \5\ The 2016 Ozone Plan contains the District's review of its NOX and VOC rules for RACT and states: ``The District adopted its 2014 RACT SIP on June 19, 2014 to satisfy requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone standard pursuant to the [EPA's] proposed 2015 Implementation Rule guidance document. The 2014 RACT SIP analysis demonstrates that the District meets or exceeds RACT for all applicable NOX source categories. In addition, in developing this attainment plan, the District updated the RACT evaluation and included VOC sources in the evaluation in Appendix C (Stationary and Area Source Control Strategy Evaluations).'' \6\ The Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP contains relevant permit conditions to implement RACT for a major NOX source, J.R. Simplot's Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA. The Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP also contains negative declarations for several CTG source categories for which the District states it does not have stationary sources or emitting facilities in the Valley related to the CTGs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \5\ SJVUAPCD 2014 RACT SIP Chapter 3. \6\ See 2016 Ozone Plan available at http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/Adopted-Plan.pdf page 3-6. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The submitted documents and supplemental clarifying information provide SJVUAPCD's analyses of its compliance with the CAA section 182 RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about the District's submissions and the EPA's evaluations thereof. II. The EPA's Evaluation and Proposed Action A. How is the EPA evaluating the submitted documents? SIP rules must require RACT for each category of sources covered by a CTG document as well as each major source of VOCs or NOX in ozone nonattainment areas classified as Moderate or above (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The SJVUAPCD regulates an Extreme ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR 81.305) so the District's rules must implement RACT. States should also submit for SIP approval negative declarations for those source categories for which they have not adopted CTG-based regulations (because they have no sources above the CTG recommended applicability threshold) regardless of whether such negative declarations were made for an earlier SIP.\7\ To do so, the submittal should provide reasonable assurance that no sources subject to the CTG requirements currently exist in the SJVUAPCD. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ 57 FR 13498, 13512 (April 16, 1992). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The District's analysis must demonstrate that each major source of NOX or VOCs in the nonattainment area is covered by a RACT- level rule. In addition, for each CTG source category, the District must either demonstrate that a RACT-level rule is in place, or submit a negative declaration. Guidance and policy documents that we use to evaluate CAA section 182 RACT requirements 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. ``State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Implementation of Title I; Proposed Rule,'' (the NOX Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November 25, 1992. 5. Memorandum from William T. Harnett to Regional Air Division Directors, (May 18, 2006), ``RACT Qs & As--Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) Questions and Answers.'' 6. ``Final Rule to Implement the 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard--Phase 2'' (70 FR 71612; November 29, 2005); and 7. ``Implementation of the 2008 National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone: State Implementation Plan Requirements'' (80 FR 12264; March 6, 2015). B. Do the submitted documents meet the evaluation criteria? The 2014 RACT SIP and Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP build on the District's previous RACT SIP demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS, 2009 RACT SIP,\8\ and cites to its ozone plan for the 2008 8- hour ozone NAAQS (``2016 Ozone Plan''). The 2014 RACT SIP includes a demonstration that major NOX sources in the Valley are covered by RACT rules, a demonstration that the District's NOX prohibitory rules satisfy RACT levels of stringency, and a statement that the District's 2016 Ozone Plan will contain additional evaluations. The 2014 RACT SIP did not contain an updated list of major VOC sources, and a demonstration that the District's VOC prohibitory rules satisfy RACT levels of stringency.\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ Our January 10, 2012 action (77 FR 1417) finalized a partial approval and partial disapproval of San Joaquin's RACT SIP for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The partial disapproval was based on our conclusion that the SJVUAPCD had not demonstrated that four rules satisfy RACT: (Rules 4352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, 4402 Crude Oil Production Sumps, 4625 Wastewater Separators, and 4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene and Polypropylene Products Manufacturing), and for which the EPA had not yet approved three additional rules into the SIP as satisfying RACT: (Rules 4566 Organic Material Composting, 4694 Wine Fermentation, and Fumigant VOC Regulations--California Department of Pesticide Regulation). These rules were subsequently approved as satisfying RACT [Rule 4352: 77 FR 66548 (November 6, 2012); Rule Rules 4402 and 4625: 77 FR 64427 (October 22, 2012); Rule 4682; 77 FR 58312 (September 20, 2012); Rule 4566: 77 FR 71129 (November 29, 2012); Rule 4694: 77 FR 71109 (November 29, 2012); and Fumigation: 77 FR 65294 (October 26, 2012)]. \9\ The EPA's proposed Implementation Rule for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, June 6, 2013 (78 FR 34178), solicited comments on modifying existing guidance to provide additional flexibility where VOC reductions may have limited impact. Although the EPA did not ultimately adopt this approach (see 80 FR 12264, at 12279; March 6, 2015), the deadline for submitting RACT SIPs was prior to the date that the EPA finalized its SIP Implementation Rule. Instead of submitting a RACT evaluation of its VOC rules in the 2014 RACT SIP, the District submitted an analysis purporting to demonstrate that the nonattainment area is one in which VOC reductions would have limited impact. Because the EPA did not finalize this approach, we are not evaluating this part of the District's submission. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 3.4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan states that in developing its attainment plan, the District updated its RACT evaluation and included VOC sources in [[Page 22911]] the evaluation in Appendix C of the 2016 Ozone Plan. Accordingly, we evaluated these submissions together to determine whether the District has in place RACT-level rules or negative declarations for each required category. 1. Efforts To Identity Non-CTG Major Sources Within the District a. SJVUAPCD Action For NOX sources, SJVUAPCD states in its 2014 RACT SIP that it reviewed its database of current Permits to Operate (PTO) to identify facilities that have the potential to emit at least 10 tons per year of NOx. Table 4 of the 2014 RACT SIP lists the facility name, the type of operation or processes occurring at the facility, and the SIP rule(s) that apply to operations at the facility. For VOC sources, although the 2014 RACT SIP did not contain an updated list of major VOC sources, the District's submittal included a copy of the 2009 RACT SIP, which contained a list of major VOC sources as of 2009. SJVUAPCD subsequently provided a list of additional major stationary sources of VOC since its 2009 RACT SIP.\10\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \10\ Email dated May 4, 2018 from Chay Thao (SJVUAPCD) to Stanley Tong (EPA), RE: major VOC sources in SJ since 2009 RACT SIP. See also 2009 RACT SIP, chapter 3, available at http://valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/RACTSIP-2009.pdf. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- b. The EPA's Evaluation For major stationary sources of NOX , we reviewed CARB's 2014 emissions inventory database and determined that there were four stationary sources with NOX emissions greater than 10 tpy that were not included in Table 4 of the District's 2014 RACT SIP. To determine if these sources were subject to RACT rules, we searched our internal database and reviewed the facilities' PTOs to identify what equipment was generating NOX emissions and whether there was an associated SIP rule. We concluded that each of the facilities' major stationary source NOX producing operations were subject to RACT rules with the exception of J.R. Simplot's Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA. The SJVUAPCD is submitting, in its parallel processing request, as Attachment A to the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, the relevant permit conditions for J.R. Simplot's PTO to correct this problem. We reviewed the proposed permit conditions, including the NOX limits, continuous emissions monitoring and data quality requirements, and recordkeeping and reporting requirements and conclude they implement NOX RACT. For major non-CTG stationary sources of VOC, we reviewed the District's list of major VOC sources in its 2009 RACT SIP, and the two additional major sources of VOC subsequently identified by the District. Based on our review, we conclude that these major VOC sources are covered by rules that implement RACT. We also reviewed CARB's 2014 emissions inventory database and determined that there were several stationary sources with VOC emissions greater than 10 tpy that were not listed in the District's 2009 RACT SIP and therefore appear to be ``new'' major sources since the District's 2009 RACT SIP. Based on a review of the facilities' description as found through an internet search and/or their Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) code, many of these new major sources appear to be related to composting, wineries, or petroleum production, and one source is a commercial printer. We determined that all these sources are already covered by SIP rules that implement RACT. Additional information regarding the EPA's evaluation can be found in the TSD. 2. The Bases for Concluding Local Rules Implement RACT a. SJVUAPCD Action For NOX sources, Chapter 4 of the 2014 RACT SIP states that the District conducted ``a literature review and evaluation of the District's stationary and area source regulations that control NOX emissions to ensure that all District NOX prohibitory rules satisfy RACT requirements.'' It also states that the District compared ``. . . each District rule against federal rules, state regulations, and comparable rules from California's most technologically progressive air districts. The applicability, stringency, and enforceability of every District NOX rule was reviewed to ensure all rules meet or exceed federal RACT requirements.'' \11\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \11\ 2014 RACT SIP at Chapters 2.2 and 4. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For VOC sources, Chapter 2.2 of the 2014 RACT SIP states that ``[a]lthough the District's VOC rules will not be evaluated as part of the 2014 RACT SIP, each regulation was evaluated in depth for the 2009 RACT SIP.'' As stated earlier, the District subsequently submitted an updated RACT analysis of its VOC rules in Appendix C of its 2016 Ozone Plan. b. The EPA's Evaluation The District must submit a RACT certification or a negative declaration for each CTG source category, and must demonstrate that each major stationary source of NOX or VOC in the District is covered by a rule that implements RACT-level controls. The fact that the EPA found that a rule met RACT in a past RACT SIP evaluation is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that the rule still meets RACT, because what is reasonably available changes over time. However, our approval of the 2009 RACT SIP indicates that RACT rules were in place for the required sources as of 2009, and in concert with the District's updated RACT analysis in the 2014 RACT SIP and Appendix C of its 2016 Ozone Plan, we agree with the District's conclusion that rules that met RACT in 2009 continued to meet RACT in 2014. 1. NOX Rules The 2014 RACT SIP conducts a RACT analysis and concludes that the District's rules for all major sources meet RACT. We agree with this conclusion based on our review of the District's analysis of relevant rules in the 2014 RACT SIP, 2016 Ozone Plan, a comparison of specific rules against rules in other air districts, and a comparison against federal regulations and guidance documents, where appropriate. The details of our evaluation are provided in the TSD, including a more focused evaluation of Rule 4103--Open Burning, Rule 4311--Flares, and Rule 4702--Internal Combustion Engines. 2. VOC Rules The 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix C, concludes that the District's rules meet RACT for all applicable rules. We agree with this conclusion based on our review of the District's analysis of relevant rules in the 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix C, the 2013 Plan for the Revoked 1-hour ozone standard, the 2009 RACT SIP, and additional explanatory materials provided by the District and found in the docket for this action. The details of our evaluation are provided in the TSD, including a more focused evaluation of Rule 4402--Crude Oil Production Sumps, Rule 4566--Organic Material Composting Operations, Rule 4624--Transfer of Organic Liquid, Rule 4653--Adhesives and Sealants, Rule 4409-- Components at Light Crude Oil Production Facilities, Natural Gas Production Facilities, and Natural Gas Processing Facilities, Rule 4605--Aerospace Assembly and Component Coating Operations, and Rule 4621--Gasoline Transfer into Stationary Storage Containers, Delivery Vessels, and Bulk Plants. 3. Negative Declarations for Source Categories Where There Are No Facilities Subject to a CTG In lieu of adopting RACT rules, Districts can adopt negative declarations [[Page 22912]] for CTG source categories if there are no sources in the District covered by the CTG. The District's parallel processing request states that it ``previously adopted Negative Declarations for CTGs . . . for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products, and Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires . . . and is confirming that the Negative Declarations adopted previously are still valid.'' The District's parallel processing request also proposes to adopt the following negative declarations because the District concludes, based on a review of its permitted sources, SIC codes, and internet searches that there are no stationary sources or emitting facilities related to the CTG source categories listed in Table 1. The EPA searched CARB's emissions inventory database and verified that there do not appear to be facilities in the SJVUAPCD that are subject to these CTGs. We believe that these five new negative declarations, and three reaffirmed negative declarations are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding RACT. Table 1--Negative Declarations--Parallel Processing ------------------------------------------------------------------------ CTG document No. Title ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EPA-450/2-77-033........................ Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume IV: Surface Coating of Insulation of Magnet Wire. EPA-450/2-78-029........................ Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products. EPA-450/2-78-030........................ Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires. EPA-450/3-83-006........................ Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical Polymer and Resin Manufacturing Equipment. EPA-450/3-83-008........................ Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and Polystyrene Resins. EPA-450/3-84-015........................ Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EPA-450/4-91-031........................ Control of Volatile Organic Compound Emissions from Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry. EPA-453/R-94-032........................ Alternative Control Technology Document--Surface Coating Operations at Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Facilities. 61 FR-44050 8/27/96..................... Control Techniques Guidelines for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating). ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Our TSD has more information on our evaluation of the submitted 2014 RACT SIP, Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP (J.R. Simplot permit to operate and negative declarations), and 2016 Ozone Plan--Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C. C. Public Comment and Proposed Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, the EPA proposes to fully approve the 2014 RACT SIP, Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP (relevant permit conditions for the J.R. Simplot Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA and negative declarations), and 2016 Ozone Plan Chapter 3.4 and Appendix C, because we believe they collectively fulfill the RACT SIP requirements under CAA sections 182(b) and (f) and 40 CFR 51.1112 for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. As noted above, our proposed action also relies upon our evaluation of the public draft version of the relevant permit conditions for the J.R. Simplot Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA and on the negative declarations planned for adoption by the SJVUAPCD in June 2018, which we will not take final action on until they are adopted and submitted to us as a revision to the California SIP. If the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP that we have evaluated were to be revised significantly prior to adoption and submittal, we would need to reconsider our proposed action accordingly. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until June 18, 2018. If we take final action to approve the submitted documents, our final action will incorporate them into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Incorporation by Reference In this rule the EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference certain permit conditions for the J.R. Simplot Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA as described above in the preamble. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these materials available through www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region IX Office (please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this preamble for more information). 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 2, 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 safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); [[Page 22913]] 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: May 8, 2018. Alexis Strauss, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. 2018-10571 Filed 5-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![22908 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Corporation, Music Choice, David List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 384 (i) For classical programs, the
Powell, David Rahn, Rockbot, Inc., proportion that the playing time of
Copyright, Digital audio
Sirius XM Radio Inc., and copyrighted classical recordings bears to
transmissions, Ephemeral recordings,
SoundExchange, Inc. The Judges the total playing time of all classical
Performance right, Sound recordings.
initiated the three-month negotiation recordings in the program; and
period and directed the participants to Proposed Regulations (ii) For all other programs, the
submit written direct statements no later proportion that the number of
For the reasons set forth in the
than May 14, 2018. See 17 U.S.C. copyrighted recordings bears to the total
preamble, the Copyright Royalty Judges
803(b)(3). number of all recordings in the program.
propose to amend part 384 of chapter III
On May 4, 2018, the Judges received of title 37 of the Code of Federal * * * * *
a Motion to Adopt Settlement stating Regulations as follows: § 384.5 [Amended]
that all participants 1 had reached a ■ 4. In § 384.5 amend paragraph (d)(4)
settlement obviating the need for PART 384—RATES AND TERMS FOR
THE MAKING OF EPHEMERAL by removing the second comma before
written direct statements or a hearing. the word ‘‘subject’’.
RECORDINGS BY BUSINESS
Section 801(b)(7)(A) of the Copyright ESTABLISHMENT SERVICES Dated: May 11, 2018.
Act authorizes the Judges to adopt Suzanne M. Barnett,
royalty rates and terms negotiated by ■ 1. The authority citation for part 384 Chief Copyright Royalty Judge.
‘‘some or all of the participants in a continues to read as follows: [FR Doc. 2018–10509 Filed 5–16–18; 8:45 am]
proceeding at any time during the Authority: 17 U.S.C. 112(e), 801(b)(1). BILLING CODE 1410–72–P
proceeding’’ provided they are
submitted to the Judges for approval. § 384.1 [Amended]
The Judges must provide ‘‘an ■ 2. In § 384.1 amend paragraph (a) by ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
opportunity to comment on the removing ‘‘January 1, 2014, through AGENCY
agreement’’ to both participants and December 31, 2018’’ and adding
non-participants in the rate proceeding ‘‘January 1, 2019, through December 31, 40 CFR Part 52
who ‘‘would be bound by the terms, 2023’’ in its place.
[EPA–R09–OAR–2018–0272; FRL–9978–
rates, or other determination set by any ■ 3. Amend § 384.3 by revising
17—Region 9]
agreement . . .’’ 17 U.S.C. paragraph (a) to read as follows and in
801(b)(7)(A)(i). Participants in the paragraph (b), removing ‘‘$10,000’’ and Air Plan Approval; California; San
proceeding may also ‘‘object to [the adding ‘‘$20,000.’’ Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
agreement’s] adoption as a basis for Control District; Reasonably Available
§ 384.3 Royalty fees for ephemeral
statutory terms and rates.’’ Id. recordings. Control Technology Demonstration
The Judges ‘‘may decline to adopt the (a) Basic royalty rate. (1) For the AGENCY: Environmental Protection
agreement as a basis for statutory terms making of any number of Ephemeral Agency (EPA).
and rates for participants that are not Recordings in the operation of a ACTION: Proposed rule.
parties to the agreement,’’ only ‘‘ if any Business Establishment Service, a
participant [to the proceeding] objects to Licensee shall pay a royalty equal to the SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
the agreement and the [Judges] following percentages of such Licensee’s Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
conclude, based on the record before ‘‘Gross Proceeds’’ derived from the use revisions to the San Joaquin Valley
them if one exists, that the agreement in such service of musical programs that Unified Air Pollution Control District
does not provide a reasonable basis for are attributable to copyrighted (SJVUAPCD or ‘‘District’’) portion of the
setting statutory terms or rates.’’ 17 recordings: California State Implementation Plan
U.S.C. 801(b)(7)(A)(ii). (SIP), which applies to the San Joaquin
Royalty rates and terms adopted Year Rate Valley of California (‘‘Valley’’). These
(%) revisions concern the District’s
pursuant to section 801(b)(7)(A) are
binding on all copyright owners of demonstration regarding Reasonably
2019 ...................................... 12.5
sound recordings and all business 2020 ...................................... 12.75
Available Control Technology (RACT)
establishment services making an 2021 ...................................... 13.0 requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
ephemeral recording of a sound 2022 ...................................... 13.25 National Ambient Air Quality Standard
recording for the period January 1, 2019, 2023 ...................................... 13.5 (NAAQS). We are also proposing to
approve a public draft version of
through December 31, 2023.
(2) ‘‘Gross Proceeds’’ as used in this SJVUAPCD’s supplement to its 2014
The public may comment and object section means all fees and payments, RACT SIP demonstration, which
to any or all of the proposed regulations including those made in kind, received contains relevant permit conditions for
contained in this notice. Comments and from any source before, during or after J.R. Simplot’s Nitric Acid plant in Helm,
objections must be submitted no later the License Period that are derived from California (CA) and negative
than June 18, 2018. the use of copyrighted sound recordings declarations where the District
during the License Period pursuant to concludes it has no sources subject to
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Despite filing a Petition to Participate, David
17 U.S.C. 112(e) for the sole purpose of certain Control Techniques Guidelines
Powell did not participate in the negotiations and (CTG) documents. We are proposing
did not join in the agreed settlement. The Judges
facilitating a transmission to the public
make no finding with regard to Mr. Powell’s of a performance of a sound recording action on local SIP revisions under the
eligibility to participate in this proceeding. Mr. under the limitation on exclusive rights Clean Air Act (CAA or ‘‘the Act’’). We
Powell may, of course, respond to this notice. To specified in 17 U.S.C. 114(d)(1)(C)(iv). are taking comments on this proposal
the extent Mr. Powell has an interest in the business and plan to follow with a final action.
establishment services license, he will be bound by
The attribution of Gross Proceeds to
the royalty rates and terms the Judges adopt copyrighted recordings may be made on DATES: Any comments must arrive by
ultimately. the basis of: June 18, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:48 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM 17MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23004/page/1.svg)
![22910 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment area (CAA section 182(e), II. The EPA’s Evaluation and Proposed 6. ‘‘Final Rule to Implement the
(f), and 302(j)). Action 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air
Section III.D of the preamble to the Quality Standard—Phase 2’’ (70 FR
EPA’s final rule to implement the 2008 A. How is the EPA evaluating the
71612; November 29, 2005); and
8-hour ozone NAAQS (80 FR 12264, submitted documents? 7. ‘‘Implementation of the 2008
March 6, 2015) discusses RACT SIP rules must require RACT for each National Ambient Air Quality Standards
requirements. It states in part that RACT category of sources covered by a CTG for Ozone: State Implementation Plan
SIPs must contain adopted RACT document as well as each major source Requirements’’ (80 FR 12264; March 6,
regulations, certifications where of VOCs or NOX in ozone nonattainment 2015).
appropriate that existing provisions are areas classified as Moderate or above B. Do the submitted documents meet the
RACT, and/or negative declarations that (see CAA section 182(b)(2)). The evaluation criteria?
no sources in the nonattainment area are SJVUAPCD regulates an Extreme ozone
covered by a specific CTG source nonattainment area (see 40 CFR 81.305) The 2014 RACT SIP and Supplement
category, and that states must submit so the District’s rules must implement to the 2014 RACT SIP build on the
appropriate supporting information for RACT. District’s previous RACT SIP
their RACT submissions as described in States should also submit for SIP demonstration for the 1997 8-hour
the EPA’s implementation rule for the approval negative declarations for those ozone NAAQS, 2009 RACT SIP,8 and
1997 ozone NAAQS. See 80 FR 12264, source categories for which they have cites to its ozone plan for the 2008 8-
at 12278 (March 5, 2015) and 70 FR not adopted CTG-based regulations hour ozone NAAQS (‘‘2016 Ozone
71612, at 71652 (November 29, 2005). (because they have no sources above the Plan’’). The 2014 RACT SIP includes a
SJVUAPCD’s 2014 RACT SIP contains CTG recommended applicability demonstration that major NOX sources
the District’s demonstration that its NOX threshold) regardless of whether such in the Valley are covered by RACT
rules implement RACT and contains a negative declarations were made for an rules, a demonstration that the District’s
review of major stationary sources of earlier SIP.7 To do so, the submittal NOX prohibitory rules satisfy RACT
NOX that emit or have the potential to should provide reasonable assurance levels of stringency, and a statement
emit at least 10 tpy of NOX.5 The 2016 that no sources subject to the CTG that the District’s 2016 Ozone Plan will
Ozone Plan contains the District’s contain additional evaluations. The
requirements currently exist in the
review of its NOX and VOC rules for 2014 RACT SIP did not contain an
SJVUAPCD.
RACT and states: ‘‘The District adopted updated list of major VOC sources, and
The District’s analysis must
its 2014 RACT SIP on June 19, 2014 to a demonstration that the District’s VOC
demonstrate that each major source of
satisfy requirements for the 2008 8-hour prohibitory rules satisfy RACT levels of
NOX or VOCs in the nonattainment area
ozone standard pursuant to the [EPA’s] stringency.9
is covered by a RACT-level rule. In Chapter 3.4 of the 2016 Ozone Plan
proposed 2015 Implementation Rule addition, for each CTG source category, states that in developing its attainment
guidance document. The 2014 RACT the District must either demonstrate that plan, the District updated its RACT
SIP analysis demonstrates that the a RACT-level rule is in place, or submit evaluation and included VOC sources in
District meets or exceeds RACT for all a negative declaration. Guidance and
applicable NOX source categories. In policy documents that we use to 8 Our January 10, 2012 action (77 FR 1417)
addition, in developing this attainment evaluate CAA section 182 RACT finalized a partial approval and partial disapproval
plan, the District updated the RACT requirements include the following: of San Joaquin’s RACT SIP for the 1997 8-hour
evaluation and included VOC sources in ozone NAAQS. The partial disapproval was based
1. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; on our conclusion that the SJVUAPCD had not
the evaluation in Appendix C General Preamble for the demonstrated that four rules satisfy RACT: (Rules
(Stationary and Area Source Control Implementation of Title I of the Clean 4352 Solid Fuel Fired Boilers, 4402 Crude Oil
Strategy Evaluations).’’ 6 The Air Act Amendments of 1990,’’ 57 FR Production Sumps, 4625 Wastewater Separators,
Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP and 4682 Polystyrene, Polyethylene and
13498 (April 16, 1992); 57 FR 18070 Polypropylene Products Manufacturing), and for
contains relevant permit conditions to (April 28, 1992). which the EPA had not yet approved three
implement RACT for a major NOX 2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation additional rules into the SIP as satisfying RACT:
source, J.R. Simplot’s Nitric Acid plant Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and (Rules 4566 Organic Material Composting, 4694
in Helm, CA. The Supplement to the Wine Fermentation, and Fumigant VOC
Deviations,’’ EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Regulations—California Department of Pesticide
2014 RACT SIP also contains negative Bluebook, revised January 11, 1990). Regulation). These rules were subsequently
declarations for several CTG source 3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting approved as satisfying RACT [Rule 4352: 77 FR
categories for which the District states it Common VOC & Other Rule 66548 (November 6, 2012); Rule Rules 4402 and
does not have stationary sources or 4625: 77 FR 64427 (October 22, 2012); Rule 4682;
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, 77 FR 58312 (September 20, 2012); Rule 4566: 77
emitting facilities in the Valley related 2001 (the Little Bluebook). FR 71129 (November 29, 2012); Rule 4694: 77 FR
to the CTGs. 4. ‘‘State Implementation Plans; 71109 (November 29, 2012); and Fumigation: 77 FR
The submitted documents and Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the 65294 (October 26, 2012)].
9 The EPA’s proposed Implementation Rule for
supplemental clarifying information General Preamble; Clean Air Act the 2008 8-Hour Ozone NAAQS, June 6, 2013 (78
provide SJVUAPCD’s analyses of its Amendments of 1990 Implementation of FR 34178), solicited comments on modifying
compliance with the CAA section 182 Title I; Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX existing guidance to provide additional flexibility
RACT requirements for the 2008 8-hour Supplement), 57 FR 55620, November where VOC reductions may have limited impact.
ozone NAAQS. The EPA’s technical Although the EPA did not ultimately adopt this
25, 1992. approach (see 80 FR 12264, at 12279; March 6,
support document (TSD) has more
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
5. Memorandum from William T. 2015), the deadline for submitting RACT SIPs was
information about the District’s Harnett to Regional Air Division prior to the date that the EPA finalized its SIP
submissions and the EPA’s evaluations Directors, (May 18, 2006), ‘‘RACT Qs & Implementation Rule. Instead of submitting a RACT
thereof. evaluation of its VOC rules in the 2014 RACT SIP,
As—Reasonably Available Control the District submitted an analysis purporting to
5 SJVUAPCD
Technology (RACT) Questions and demonstrate that the nonattainment area is one in
2014 RACT SIP Chapter 3. which VOC reductions would have limited impact.
6 See
Answers.’’
2016 Ozone Plan available at http:// Because the EPA did not finalize this approach, we
valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/Ozone-Plan-2016/ are not evaluating this part of the District’s
Adopted-Plan.pdf page 3–6. 7 57 FR 13498, 13512 (April 16, 1992). submission.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:48 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM 17MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23004/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 22911
the evaluation in Appendix C of the of major VOC sources in its 2009 RACT EPA found that a rule met RACT in a
2016 Ozone Plan. Accordingly, we SIP, and the two additional major past RACT SIP evaluation is not, by
evaluated these submissions together to sources of VOC subsequently identified itself, sufficient to establish that the rule
determine whether the District has in by the District. Based on our review, we still meets RACT, because what is
place RACT-level rules or negative conclude that these major VOC sources reasonably available changes over time.
declarations for each required category. are covered by rules that implement However, our approval of the 2009
RACT. We also reviewed CARB’s 2014 RACT SIP indicates that RACT rules
1. Efforts To Identity Non-CTG Major
emissions inventory database and were in place for the required sources as
Sources Within the District
determined that there were several of 2009, and in concert with the
a. SJVUAPCD Action stationary sources with VOC emissions District’s updated RACT analysis in the
For NOX sources, SJVUAPCD states in greater than 10 tpy that were not listed 2014 RACT SIP and Appendix C of its
its 2014 RACT SIP that it reviewed its in the District’s 2009 RACT SIP and 2016 Ozone Plan, we agree with the
database of current Permits to Operate therefore appear to be ‘‘new’’ major District’s conclusion that rules that met
(PTO) to identify facilities that have the sources since the District’s 2009 RACT RACT in 2009 continued to meet RACT
potential to emit at least 10 tons per SIP. Based on a review of the facilities’ in 2014.
year of NOx. Table 4 of the 2014 RACT description as found through an internet
1. NOX Rules
SIP lists the facility name, the type of search and/or their Standard Industrial
operation or processes occurring at the Classification (SIC) code, many of these The 2014 RACT SIP conducts a RACT
facility, and the SIP rule(s) that apply to new major sources appear to be related analysis and concludes that the
operations at the facility. to composting, wineries, or petroleum District’s rules for all major sources
For VOC sources, although the 2014 production, and one source is a meet RACT. We agree with this
RACT SIP did not contain an updated commercial printer. We determined that conclusion based on our review of the
list of major VOC sources, the District’s all these sources are already covered by District’s analysis of relevant rules in
submittal included a copy of the 2009 SIP rules that implement RACT. the 2014 RACT SIP, 2016 Ozone Plan,
RACT SIP, which contained a list of Additional information regarding the a comparison of specific rules against
major VOC sources as of 2009. EPA’s evaluation can be found in the rules in other air districts, and a
SJVUAPCD subsequently provided a list TSD. comparison against federal regulations
of additional major stationary sources of and guidance documents, where
2. The Bases for Concluding Local Rules appropriate. The details of our
VOC since its 2009 RACT SIP.10 Implement RACT evaluation are provided in the TSD,
b. The EPA’s Evaluation a. SJVUAPCD Action including a more focused evaluation of
For major stationary sources of NOX, For NOX sources, Chapter 4 of the Rule 4103—Open Burning, Rule 4311—
we reviewed CARB’s 2014 emissions 2014 RACT SIP states that the District Flares, and Rule 4702—Internal
inventory database and determined that conducted ‘‘a literature review and Combustion Engines.
there were four stationary sources with evaluation of the District’s stationary 2. VOC Rules
NOX emissions greater than 10 tpy that and area source regulations that control
were not included in Table 4 of the The 2016 Ozone Plan, Appendix C,
NOX emissions to ensure that all District
District’s 2014 RACT SIP. To determine concludes that the District’s rules meet
NOX prohibitory rules satisfy RACT
if these sources were subject to RACT requirements.’’ It also states that the RACT for all applicable rules. We agree
rules, we searched our internal database District compared ‘‘. . . each District with this conclusion based on our
and reviewed the facilities’ PTOs to rule against federal rules, state review of the District’s analysis of
identify what equipment was generating regulations, and comparable rules from relevant rules in the 2016 Ozone Plan,
NOX emissions and whether there was California’s most technologically Appendix C, the 2013 Plan for the
an associated SIP rule. We concluded progressive air districts. The Revoked 1-hour ozone standard, the
that each of the facilities’ major applicability, stringency, and 2009 RACT SIP, and additional
stationary source NOX producing enforceability of every District NOX rule explanatory materials provided by the
operations were subject to RACT rules was reviewed to ensure all rules meet or District and found in the docket for this
with the exception of J.R. Simplot’s exceed federal RACT requirements.’’ 11 action. The details of our evaluation are
Nitric Acid plant in Helm, CA. The For VOC sources, Chapter 2.2 of the provided in the TSD, including a more
SJVUAPCD is submitting, in its parallel 2014 RACT SIP states that ‘‘[a]lthough focused evaluation of Rule 4402—Crude
processing request, as Attachment A to the District’s VOC rules will not be Oil Production Sumps, Rule 4566—
the Supplement to the 2014 RACT SIP, evaluated as part of the 2014 RACT SIP, Organic Material Composting
the relevant permit conditions for J.R. each regulation was evaluated in depth Operations, Rule 4624—Transfer of
Simplot’s PTO to correct this problem. for the 2009 RACT SIP.’’ As stated Organic Liquid, Rule 4653—Adhesives
We reviewed the proposed permit earlier, the District subsequently and Sealants, Rule 4409—Components
conditions, including the NOX limits, submitted an updated RACT analysis of at Light Crude Oil Production Facilities,
continuous emissions monitoring and its VOC rules in Appendix C of its 2016 Natural Gas Production Facilities, and
data quality requirements, and Ozone Plan. Natural Gas Processing Facilities, Rule
recordkeeping and reporting 4605—Aerospace Assembly and
requirements and conclude they b. The EPA’s Evaluation Component Coating Operations, and
implement NOX RACT. The District must submit a RACT Rule 4621—Gasoline Transfer into
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
For major non-CTG stationary sources certification or a negative declaration for Stationary Storage Containers, Delivery
of VOC, we reviewed the District’s list each CTG source category, and must Vessels, and Bulk Plants.
demonstrate that each major stationary
3. Negative Declarations for Source
10 Email dated May 4, 2018 from Chay Thao
source of NOX or VOC in the District is
(SJVUAPCD) to Stanley Tong (EPA), RE: major VOC Categories Where There Are No
covered by a rule that implements
sources in SJ since 2009 RACT SIP. See also 2009
RACT-level controls. The fact that the Facilities Subject to a CTG
RACT SIP, chapter 3, available at http://
valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/docs/RACTSIP- In lieu of adopting RACT rules,
2009.pdf. 11 2014 RACT SIP at Chapters 2.2 and 4. Districts can adopt negative declarations
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:48 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM 17MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23004/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 96 / Thursday, May 17, 2018 / Proposed Rules 22913
• is not a significant regulatory action (PM2.5), 2006 PM2.5, 2008 lead (Pb), 2008 I. What is the background of this SIP
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR ozone, 2010 nitrogen dioxide (NO2), submission?
28355, May 22, 2001); 2010 sulfur dioxide (SO2), and 2012 This rulemaking proposes to approve
• is not subject to requirements of PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality a SIP submission from MPCA dated
Section 12(d) of the National Standards (NAAQS). The Minnesota October 4, 2016, which addresses
Technology Transfer and Advancement Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) infrastructure requirements relating to
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because submitted the SIP revision to EPA on PSD for the 1997 ozone, 1997 PM2.5,
application of those requirements would October 4, 2016. 2006 PM2.5, 2008 Pb, 2008 ozone, 2010
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; DATES: Comments must be received on NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
and or before June 18, 2018. The requirement for states to make
• does not provide the EPA with the infrastructure SIP submissions arises
discretionary authority to address ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
out of CAA section 110(a)(1). Pursuant
disproportionate human health or identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
to CAA section 110(a)(1), states must
environmental effects with practical, OAR–2016–0603 at http://
make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3 years
appropriate, and legally permissible www.regulations.gov, or via email to
(or such shorter period as the
methods under Executive Order 12898 aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For
Administrator may prescribe) after the
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). comments submitted at Regulations.gov,
promulgation of a national primary
In addition, the SIP is not approved follow the online instructions for
ambient air quality standard (or any
to apply on any Indian reservation land submitting comments. Once submitted,
revision thereof),’’ and these SIP
or in any other area where the EPA or comments cannot be edited or removed
submissions are to provide for the
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a from Regulations.gov. For either manner
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of of submission, EPA may publish any
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
Indian country, the rule does not have comment received to its public docket.
statute directly imposes on states the
tribal implications and will not impose Do not submit electronically any
duty to make these SIP submissions,
substantial direct costs on tribal information you consider to be
and the requirement to make the
governments or preempt tribal law as Confidential Business Information (CBI)
submissions is not conditioned upon
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 or other information whose disclosure is
EPA’s taking any action other than
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). restricted by statute. Multimedia
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 CAA section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
accompanied by a written comment.
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
Environmental protection, Air The written comment is considered the
plan’’ submission must address.
pollution control, Incorporation by official comment and should include
EPA has historically referred to these
reference, Intergovernmental relations, discussion of all points you wish to
SIP submissions made for the purpose
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate make. EPA will generally not consider
of satisfying the requirements of CAA
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping comments or comment contents located
section 110(a)(1) and (2) as
requirements, Volatile organic outside of the primary submission (i.e.,
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
compounds. on the web, cloud, or other file sharing
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
system). For additional submission
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses
methods, please contact the person
Dated: May 8, 2018. the term to distinguish this particular
identified in the FOR FURTHER
Alexis Strauss, type of SIP submission from
INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the
submissions that are intended to satisfy
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. full EPA public comment policy, other SIP requirements under the CAA.
[FR Doc. 2018–10571 Filed 5–16–18; 8:45 am] information about CBI or multimedia This specific rulemaking is only taking
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P submissions, and general guidance on action on the infrastructure SIP
making effective comments, please visit elements relating to PSD, provided at
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ CAA sections 110(a)(2)(C),
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION commenting-epa-dockets. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), and
AGENCY
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 110(a)(2)(J).
40 CFR Part 52 Svingen, Environmental Engineer, In previous rulemakings, EPA
Attainment Planning and Maintenance addressed Minnesota’s infrastructure
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0603; FRL–9978–11– Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), obligations under the various NAAQS.
Region 5] Environmental Protection Agency, On July 13, 2011 (76 FR 41075), EPA
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, approved most elements of Minnesota’s
Air Plan Approval; Minnesota; PSD
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–4489, infrastructure SIP submittal for the 1997
Infrastructure SIP Requirements
svingen.eric@epa.gov. ozone and 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. On
AGENCY: Environmental Protection SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
October 29, 2012 (77 FR 65478), EPA
Agency (EPA). Throughout this document whenever approved most elements of Minnesota’s
ACTION: Proposed rule. ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2006
EPA. This supplementary information PM2.5 NAAQS. On July 16, 2014 (79 FR
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection section is arranged as follows: 41439), EPA approved most elements of
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with PROPOSALS
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Minnesota’s infrastructure SIP submittal
elements of a state implementation plan I. What is the background of this SIP for the 2008 Pb NAAQS. Finally, on
(SIP) submission from Minnesota submission? October 20, 2015 (80 FR 63436), EPA
II. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate
regarding the infrastructure this SIP submission?
approved most elements of Minnesota’s
requirements of section 110 of the Clean III. What is the result of EPA’s review of this infrastructure SIP submittal for the 2008
Air Act (CAA) relating to Prevention of SIP submission? ozone, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, and 2012
Significant Deterioration (PSD) for the IV. What action is EPA taking? PM2.5 NAAQS. However, because
1997 ozone, 1997 fine particulate V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Minnesota did not have an approved
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:48 May 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17MYP1.SGM 17MYP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_23004/page/6.svg)
Document Created: 2018-05-17 00:50:18
Document Modified: 2018-05-17 00:50:18
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Any comments must arrive by June 18, 2018. | |
| Contact | Stanley Tong, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4122, [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 22908 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR