[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 204 (Monday, October 24, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-26282]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: October 24, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 14-4-6250; FRL-5095-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control
District (YSAPCD) and Kern County Air Pollution Control District
(KCAPCD), SE Desert Portion
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval to
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which
concern the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
the loading and storage of organic liquids.
The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited
disapproval of these rules is to regulate emissions of VOC's in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA's final action on this notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) will incorporate these rules into the federally
approved SIP. EPA has evaluated the rules and is proposing a
simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval under provisions
of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and general
rulemaking authority because these revisions, while strengthening the
SIP, also do not fully meet the CAA provisions regarding plan
submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 23, 1994.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking
Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions
are also available for inspection at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District (SE Desert), 2700 M Street,
suite 290, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District, 1947 Galileo Ct., suite
103, Davis, CA 95616.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duane F. James, Rulemaking Section (A-
5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone:
(415) 744-1191.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicability
The rules being proposed for approval into the California SIP
include: YSAPCD's Rule 2.21 (including Rule 2.21.1), Vapor Control for
Organic Liquid Transfer and Storage (adopted by the District on
November 14, 1990), and KCAPCD's Rules 411, Storage of Organic Liquids,
and 413, Organic Liquid Loading (both adopted May 6, 1991). These rules
were submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA on May 13,
1991 (YSAPCD) and May 30, 1991 (KCAPCD).
Background
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment
areas under the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act (1977 CAA or pre-
amended Act), that included the Sacramento Metro Area, San Francisco-
Bay Area, and San Joaquin Valley Air Basin.1 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
81.305. Because the Sacramento Metro Area and the San Francisco-Bay
Area were unable to reach attainment by the statutory attainment date
of December 31, 1982, California requested under pre-amended section
172(a)(2), and EPA approved, an extension of the attainment date to
December 31, 1987.2 40 CFR 52.238. The Sacramento Metro and San
Francisco-Bay Areas, and the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin did not
attain the ozone standard by the approved attainment date. On May 26,
1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act, that the YSAPCD and KCAPCD
portions of the SIP were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone
standard and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be
corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 1990, amendments to the
1977 CAA were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at
42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA,
Congress statutorily adopted the requirement that nonattainment areas
fix their deficient reasonably available control technology (RACT)
rules for ozone and established a deadline of May 15, 1991, for states
to submit corrections of those deficiencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Yolo County lies within the Sacramento Metro Area and Solano
County lies in part in the Sacramento Metro Area and in part in the
San Francisco-Bay Area. At the time, Kern County was included in the
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin and the Southeast Desert Air Basin. The
San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County was designated
as nonattainment and the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion was
designated as unclassified.
\2\This extension was not requested for Kern County. Thus, Kern
County's Attainment date remained December 31, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 20, 1991, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution
Control District was formed. This District has authority over the San
Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of Kern County. Thus, as of March 20,
1991, the KCAPCD has authority only over the Southeast Desert Air Basin
portion of Kern County.
Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment
prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or
above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and
correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as
interpreted in EPA's pre-amendment guidance.3 EPA's SIP-Call used
that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific
nonattainment areas. The Sacramento Metro Area is classified as a
serious ozone nonattainment area and the San Francisco-Bay Area is
classified as moderate;4 therefore, these two areas are subject to
the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline. All of Kern
County is classified as serious.5 However, the Southeast Desert
Air Basin portion of Kern County was not a pre-enactment nonattainment
area and, therefore, was not designated and classified upon enactment
of the amended Act. For this reason, KCAPCD is not subject to the
section 182(a)(2)(A) RACT fixup requirement. However, the KCAPCD is
still subject to the requirements of EPA's SIP-Call because the SIP-
Call included all of Kern County. The substantive requirements of the
SIP-Call are the same as those of the statutory RACT fixup requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register
Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control
technique guidelines (CTG's).
\4\The Sacramento Metro Area and San Francisco-Bay Area retained
their designations and were classified by operation of law pursuant
to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA.
See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
\5\ The San Joaquin Valley Air Basin portion of the KCAPCD
retained its nonattainment designation and was classified by
operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the
date of enactment of the CAA. The Southeast Desert Air Basin portion
of the KCAPCD was designated nonattainment on November 6, 1991. See
56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California submitted many RACT rules to EPA for
incorporation into its SIP on May 13, 1991 (YSAPCD) and on May 30, 1991
(KCAPCD). This document addresses EPA's proposed action for YSAPCD's
Rule 2.21 (including Rule 2.21.1), Vapor Control for Organic Liquid
Transfer and Storage (adopted by the District on November 14, 1990),
and KCAPCD's Rules 411, Storage of Organic Liquids, and 413, Organic
Liquid Loading (both adopted May 6, 1991). These submitted YSAPCD and
KCAPCD rules were found to be complete on July 10, 1991 and February
16, 1990, respectively, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that
are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V6 and are being
proposed for limited approval and limited disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ EPA adopted completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55
FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised
the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
YSAPCD's Rule 2.21 controls emissions of VOCs from organic liquid
(primarily gasoline) loading. As a subset of Rule 2.21, Rule 2.21.1
controls emissions from tank storage of organic liquids. KCAPCD's Rules
411 and 413 control VOC emissions during the storage and loading of
organic liquids, respectively. VOC's contribute to the production of
ground level ozone and smog. YSAPCD's Rule 2.21 and KCAPCD's Rules 411
and 413 were originally adopted as part of the districts' efforts to
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and
have been revised in response to EPA's SIP-Call. YSAPCD's rule was also
submitted in response to the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The
following is EPA's evaluation and proposed action for YSAPCD Rule 2.21
and KCAPCD Rules 411 and 413.
EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action
In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA
policy guidance documents listed in footnote 3. Among those provisions
is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum, provide for the
implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC emissions. This
requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.
For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing
RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)
documents which specify the minimum requirements that a rule must
contain in order to be approved into the SIP. The CTG's are based on
the underlying requirements of the Act and specify the presumptive
norms for what is RACT for specific source categories. Under the CAA,
Congress ratified EPA's use of these documents, as well as other Agency
policy, for requiring States to ``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See
section 182(a)(2)(A). Three CTGs are applicable to YSAPCD Rule 2.21:
(1) ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Bulk Gasoline
Plants,'' document EPA-450/2-77-035, (2) ``Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof
Tanks,'' document EPA-450/2-78-047, and (3) ``Control of Volatile
Organic Emissions from Storage of Petroleum Liquids in Fixed-Roof
Tanks,'' document EPA-450/2-77-036. Two of these CTGs are also
applicable to KCAPCD Rule 411: ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions
from Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks'' and
``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid Storage
in Fixed Roof Tanks. The CTG applicable to KCAPCD Rule 413 is ``Control
of Hydrocarbons from Tank Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals,'' document
EPA-450/2-77-026. Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in
the Blue Book. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth
to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or
maintain the SIP.
YSAPCD's submitted Rule 2.21, Vapor Control for Organic Liquid
Transfer and Storage, includes the following revisions of the current
SIP rule:
1. Test methods for determining vapor pressure and vapor tightness
have been added.
2. Provisions for equivalent or alternative control systems have
been deleted.
3. VOC emission limits of 0.65 pounds per 1,000 gallons transferred
have been added.
4. An exemption of facilities with a throughput of 20,000 gallons
per day has been reduced to 4,000 gallons per day. The exemption of all
tanks used in agriculture has been limited to those less than 550
gallons in capacity.
5. Requirements for recordkeeping have been added.
6. Requirements for submerged filling of tanks have been added.
There were no changes or additions to the subset Rule 2.21.1 which
addresses storage tank requirements.
KCAPCD's submitted Rule 411, Storage of Organic Liquids, includes
the following revisions to the current SIP rule:
1. The primary seal gap criteria have been made more stringent for
floating roofs.
2. Recordkeeping provisions for exemptions have been added.
3. Test methods for the determination of exempt compounds, true
vapor pressure, and control efficiency have been added.
4. The definitions section has been expanded making the rule
clearer and more enforceable.
KCAPCD's submitted Rule 413, Organic Liquid Loading, includes the
following revisions to the current SIP rule:
1. A definition of ``leaks'' and a test method for determining
leaks have been added.
2. A VOC emission limit of 0.08 pounds per 1,000 gallons
transferred has been added.
3. Test methods for the determination of compliance with the
emission limit have been added.
4. A requirement for vapor controls when loading exempt liquids
into a tank which previously contained nonexempt liquids (switch
loading) has been added.
5. Recordkeeping requirements for exempt facilities have been
added.
EPA has evaluated YSAPCD's submitted Rule 2.21 and KCAPCD's
submitted Rules 411 and 413 for consistency with the CAA, EPA
regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions address
and correct many deficiencies previously identified by EPA. These
corrected deficiencies have resulted in clearer, more enforceable
rules.
Although YSAPCD's submitted Rule 2.21 and KCAPCD's submitted Rules
411 and 413 will strengthen the SIP, these rules still contain
deficiencies which were required to be corrected pursuant to the
section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of Part D of the CAA. In YSAPCD's Rule
2.21, there is an incorrect reference to a test method for determining
compliance, and the type of facilities which have to meet the emission
limits set by the rule is not defined. In KCAPCD's Rule 411,
deficiencies include: (1) An exemption from EPA's new source review;
(2) a reference to a test method, which has not been approved by EPA;
and (3) a lack of recordkeeping requirements for exempt tanks. In
KCAPCD's Rule 413, there are no recordkeeping requirements to determine
if a facility needs to comply with the rule. A detailed discussion of
rule deficiencies can be found in the Technical Support Documents
(TSD's) for Rule 2.21 (September 30, 1993), Rule 411 (January 7, 1994),
and Rule 413 (December 1, 1993), which are available from the U.S. EPA,
Region 9 office. Because of these deficiencies, the rules are not
approvable pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA because they
are not consistent with the interpretation of section 172 of the 1977
CAA as found in the Blue Book and may lead to rule enforceability
problems.
Because of the above deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval
of these rules under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the
submitted rules are not composed of separable parts which meet all the
applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval
of the rules under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited
approval of the submitted rules under section 110(k)(3) in light of
EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval
is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited
disapproval. In order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited
approval of YSAPCD's submitted Rule 2.21 and KCAPCD's submitted Rules
411 and 413 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of
these rules because they contain deficiencies that have not been
corrected as required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such,
the rules do not fully meet the requirements of part D of the Act.
Under section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission
under section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in
section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18
months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions
available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18
month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective
date of EPA's final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final
disapproval triggers the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement
under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rules covered by this
NPRM have been adopted by YSAPCD and KCAPCD and are currently in effect
in those districts. EPA's final limited disapproval action will not
prevent the districts or EPA from enforcing these rules.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Regulatory Process
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and
government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
Limited approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, Part
D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the federal-state relationship
under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would
constitute federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state
action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.
1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
EPA's limited disapproval of the State request under sections 110
and 301 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not affect any
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval
of the state submittal does not affect its state enforceability.
Moreover, EPA's limited disapproval of the submittal does not impose
any new federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this
limited disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because it does not remove
existing requirements nor does it impose any new federal requirements.
The OMB has exempted this action from review under Executive Order
12866.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compound.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: October 11, 1994.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-26282 Filed 10-21-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
