[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 235 (Thursday, December 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30212]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 8, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA-83-3-6675; FRL--5119-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which
concern the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
polyester resin operations.
The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited
disapproval of this rule is to regulate emissions of VOCs 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 will
incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. EPA has
evaluated the rule 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 this revision,
while strengthening the SIP, does not fully meet the CAA provisions
regarding plan submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 1995.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking
Section [Mail Stop A-5-3], Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901.
Copies of the new rule and EPA's evaluation report of the rule are
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal
business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are also available for
inspection at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 92123-1095.
Yolo-Solano County Air Pollution Control District 1947 Galileo
Court, Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section
[Mail Stop A-5-3], Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105-3901 Telephone: (415) 744-1197.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 Yolo-Solano County Area. 43 FR 8964; 40
CFR 81.305. Because the Yolo-Solano County Area was 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. 40
CFR 52.222. The Yolo-Solano County Area 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 Yolo-Solano County APCD's portion of the SIP was
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(b)(2)(C) of the CAA, Congress statutorily required
nonattainment areas to submit reasonably available control technology
(RACT) rules for all major sources of VOCs by November 15, 1992 (the
RACT catch-up requirement).
The Yolo-Solano County Area is classified as serious; the portion
of Solano County in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area is classified as
serious; the portion of Solano County in the San Francisco-Bay Area is
classified as moderate;1 therefore, this area is subject to the
RACT catch-up requirement and the November 15, 1992 deadline.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Yolo County, the portion of Solano County in the Sacramento
Metropolitan Area, and the portion of Solano County in the San
Francisco-Bay Area retained their designation 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).
\2\California did not make the required SIP submittals by
November 15, 1992. On January 15, 1993, the EPA made a finding of
failure to make a submittal pursuant to section 179(a)(1), which
started an 18-month sanction clock. The rule being acted on in the
NPRM was submitted in response to the EPA finding of failure to
submit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules to EPA
for incorporation into its SIP on May 24, 1994, including the rule
being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's proposed
action for Rule 2.30, Polyester Resin Operations. The Yolo-Solano
County APCD adopted Rule 2.30 on August 25, 1993. This submitted rule
was found to be complete on July 14, 1994 pursuant to EPA's
completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix
V3 and is being proposed for limited approval and limited
disapproval.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yolo-Solano County APCD's Rule 2.30 is a new rule which controls
the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from polyester resin
operations. VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone and
smog. Yolo-Solano County APCD's Rule 2.30 was adopted as part of the
district's effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard
(NAAQS) for ozone and to fulfill the requirements of section
182(b)(2)(C) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and
proposed action for Yolo Solano County APCD Rule 2.30.
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.4 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 ``catch-up'' their RACT rules. See
section 182(b)(2). For some categories, such as polyester resin
operations, EPA did not publish a CTG. In such cases, the district may
determine what controls are required to satisfy the RACT requirement by
reviewing the operations of facilities subject to the regulation and
evaluating regulations for similar sources in other areas. Further
interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, referred to
in footnote 4. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth
to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or
maintain the SIP.
Yolo-Solano County APCD Rule 2.30, Polyester Resin Operations, is a
new rule which was adopted to control VOC emissions from polyester
resin operations during evaporation of monomer when resins are applied
and cured and from the use of clean-up solvents. Rule 2.30 requires the
following:
The use of low monomer resins, vapor suppressed resins, or
the use of closed-mold systems. As an alternative, a facility may elect
to use add-on control devices.
Recordkeeping for product use and add-on control
equipment.
The use of test methods to determine compliance with the
rule.
EPA has evaluated Yolo-Solano County APCD's submitted Rule 2.30 for
consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found
that for the most part, the rule is consistent with the CAA and will
strengthen the SIP.
Although Yolo-Solano County APCD's Rule 2.30 will strengthen the
SIP, this rule still contains a deficiency which was required to be
corrected pursuant to the section 182(b)(2)(C) requirement of part D of
the CAA. Rule 2.30 requires low monomer resins but does not reference a
test method to determine the monomer content of resin material. EPA
recommends the use of South Coast Air Quality Management District Test
Method 312 as an appropriate test method to correct this deficiency.
(See the Technical Support Document dated August 29, 1994 for a
detailed evaluation.) Because of this deficiency, the rule is not
approvable pursuant to the section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA because it
is 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 deficiency, EPA cannot grant full approval of
this rule under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the
submitted rule is not composed of separable parts which meet all the
applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval
of the rule under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited
approval of the submitted rule 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 Yolo-Solano County APCD Rule submitted Rule 2.30 under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of
this rule because it contains a deficiency that has not been corrected
as required by section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA, and, as such, the rule
does 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. EPA's order of sanctions rule, promulgated
August 4, 1994, sets forth the two available sanctions under section
179(b) and the timing and order in which they will be imposed. See 59
FR 39832. Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the Federal
implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). It should
be noted that the rule covered by this NPRM has been adopted by the
Yolo-Solano County APCD and is currently in effect in the district.
EPA's limited disapproval action will not prevent the Solano County
APCD or EPA from enforcing this rule.
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. Section 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 regulatory action from review under
Executive Order 12866.
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.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: November 30, 1994.
John Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-30212 Filed 12-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
