[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 212 (Monday, November 3, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59284-59287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29050]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 083-0053a; FRL-5911-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
rules from the San Diego County Air Pollution Control District
(SDCAPCD) and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
(VCAPCD). This approval action will incorporate these rules into the
federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rules is
to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in
accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act). The revised rules control VOC emissions from
metal container, metal closure, and metal coil coating operations and
marine vessel coating operations. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval
of these revisions into the California SIP under provisions of the CAA
regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and
secondary ambient air quality standards and plan requirements for
nonattainment areas.
DATES: This action is effective on January 2, 1998 unless adverse or
critical comments are received by December 3, 1997. If the effective
date is delayed, timely notice will be published in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region
IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's
evaluation report for each rule are available for public inspection at
EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the
submitted rule revisions are available for inspection at the following
locations:
Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street,
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 92123-1095
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive,
San Diego, CA 92123-1096
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 702 County Square Drive,
Ventura, California 93003.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office,
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1226
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The rules being approved into the California SIP include SDCAPCD's
Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating
Operations, and VCAPCD's Rule 74.24, Marine Vessel Coating Operations.
These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
to EPA on October 18, 1996 and May 24, 1994, respectively.
[[Page 59285]]
II. Background
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977
(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included San Diego and Ventura
counties, see 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified
the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the
1977 Act, that the San Diego and Ventura county portions of the
California 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, the Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 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.
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 pre-amendment guidance.1 EPA's SIP-Call used
that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific
nonattainment areas. San Diego County is classified as ``serious'' and
Ventura County as ``severe''.2 As a result, these areas were
subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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 (CTGs).
\2\ Both San Diego and Ventura counties retained their
designation of nonattainment 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for
incorporation into its SIP on October 18, 1996 and May 24, 1994,
including the rules being acted on in this document. This document
addresses EPA's direct-final action on SDCAPCD's Rule 67.4, Metal
Container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating Operations, and
VCAPCD's Rule 74.24, Marine Vessel Coating Operations. SDCAPCD adopted
revisions to Rule 67.4 on July 25, 1995 and May 15, 1996. This
submitted rule was found to be complete on December 19, 1996 pursuant
to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V.3 VCAPCD adopted Rule 74.24 on March 8, 1994. EPA
found this submitted rule complete on July 14, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ EPA adopted the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's review of SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 addresses two adopted revisions
of the rule, one from July 25, 1995 and May 15, 1996. These two adopted
versions of SDCAPCD 67.4 were submitted by CARB to EPA on October 18,
1996. Because the July 25, 1995 revisions to Rule 67.4 are reflected in
the later May 15, 1996 revision and adoption, this rulemaking concerns
substantively the latest adopted submittal of Rule 67.4, the May 15,
1996 rule revision.
SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 and VCAPCD Rule 74.24 are prohibitory rules
governing the use and application of coating compounds containing
photochemically reactive volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in their
respective industries, metal container, closure, and coil manufacturing
and marine vessel building, painting, and repair. VOCs contribute to
the production of ground level ozone and smog. These rules were
originally adopted as part of both the SDCAPCD and VCAPCD's respective
efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)
for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section
182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. EPA's evaluation and final action for
these rules follow below.
III. EPA Evaluation and 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 1. 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. The CTGs 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). The CTGs
applicable to these rules are as follows: ``Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Volume II: Surface Coating
of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light Duty Trucks,''
USEPA, May 1977, EPA-450/2-77-008; and, ``Control Technique Guidelines
(CTG) for Shipbuilding and Ship Repair Operations (Surface Coating),
USEPA, 61 FR 44050-44057, August 27, 1996. Further interpretations of
EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote one. In
general, these guidance documents have been set forth to ensure that
VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
On May 2, 1995, EPA approved into the SIP a version of SDCAPCD's
Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating
Operations, that had been adopted by SDCAPCD on September 27, 1994. The
revised version of SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 under consideration today includes
the following significant changes from the current SIP rule:
--Lowered VOC limits for end sealing compound for food and beverage
containers, from 440 grams/liter (gr/l) to 20 gr/l;
--Added VOC limits for exterior and interior spray coating of new (as
opposed to reconditioned) drums, pails, and lids at 340 and 420 gr/l;
--Added requirements for equipment cleaning operations;
--Exempted the use of cleaning material in quantities of less than 10
gallons per month from the prohibition of VOC containing materials;
--Updated several definitions;
--Updated and added test methods; and,
--Revised the exempt compound definition to reference Rule 2, a rule
defining exempt compounds for all rules regulating VOC emissions.
EPA has reviewed and approved Rule 2 and similar changes to other
VOC related rules for incorporation into the California SIP (see 62 FR
14659, March 27, 1997.)
EPA has evaluated SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 and has determined that it is
consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,
[[Page 59286]]
SDCAPCD's Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil
Coating Operations, is approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as
meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D.
There is no version of VCAPCD's Rule 74.24, Marine Vessel Coating
Operations, in the SIP. The submitted rule includes the following
provisions: applicability, general and specialty coating emission
limits, add-on emission control equipment requirements; allowable
exemptions from the rule, recordkeeping requirements, appropriate test
methods, violations under the rule, and a list of definitions operable
within the rule.
EPA has evaluated VCAPCD Rule 74.24 as submitted and has determined
that it is consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.
Therefore, VCPCD's Rule 74.24, Marine Vessel Coating Operations, is
approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements
of section 110(a) and part D.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future 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.
EPA is publishing this document without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no
adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be
effective January 2, 1998, unless, by December 3, 1997, adverse or
critical comments are received.
If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn
before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will
withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should
do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is
advised that this action will be effective January 2, 1998.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
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.
SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the
Clean Air Act 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, the
Administrator certifies 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 flexibility
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S.
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report
containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate,
the U.S. House of Representatives and the Comptroller General of the
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 2, 1998. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: September 26, 1997.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
[[Page 59287]]
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(197)(i)(D)
and (c)(241)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(197) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 74.24, adopted on March 8, 1994.
* * * * *
(241) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Rule 67.4, revised on May 15, 1996.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 97-29050 Filed 10-31-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
