[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 64 (Monday, April 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-7990]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: April 4, 1994]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[CA 13-3-6234; FRL-4857-5]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control 
District, Ventura Country Air Pollution Control District, and Placer 
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the following air pollution 
control districts: The Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District 
(Yolo-Solano APCD) on November 14, 1990; the Placer County Air 
Pollution Control District (Placer County APCD) on September 25, 1990; 
and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Ventura County 
APCD) on December 10, 1991. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
submitted these revisions to EPA on the following dates: May 13, 1991, 
April 5, 1991 and June 19, 1992, respectively. The revisions concern 
Yolo-Solano APCD's Rule 2.24-Solvent Cleaning Operations, Ventura 
County APCD's Rule 74.6-Surface Cleaning and Degreasing, and Placer 
County APCD's Rule 216-Degreasing Operations. These rules control 
emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from surface cleaning 
and degreasing operations. The intended effect of proposing approval of 
these rules 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 (NPR) will 
incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. EPA has 
evaluated each of these rules and is proposing to approve them 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: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 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.
    Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each 
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:
    Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.
    Yolo-Solano County APCD, 1947 Galileo Ct., suite 103, Davis, CA 
95616.
    Ventura County APCD, 702 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.
    Placer County APCD, 11464 B. Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Davis, Rulemaking Section (A-
5-4), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 
744-1183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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 CAA or pre-amended Act), that included the Yolo-Solano County 
Area and the Ventura County Area. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On 
September 12, 1979 EPA promulgated a similar list that included the 
Placer County Area. 44 FR 53801; 40 CFR 81.305. Because these areas 
were unable to meet the statutory attainment date of December 31, 1982, 
California requested under section 172(a)(2), and EPA approved, an 
extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1987. 40 CFR 52.238. 
On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to 
section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act, that the above districts' 
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)1. On November 15, 1990, the Clean 
Air Act Amendments of 1990 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\The Lake Tahoe portion of Placer County is in attainment for 
ozone and was not subject to the SIP call.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.2 EPA's SIP-Call used that 
guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific 
nonattainment areas. The Yolo County Area is classified 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; the Ventura County Area 
is classified as severe; and the portion of Placer County in the 
Sacramento Metropolitan Area is classified as serious;3 therefore 
these areas were subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 
1991 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of 
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concerns 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).
    \3\Yolo County, the portion of Solano County in the Sacramento 
Metropolitan Area, the portion of Solano County in the San 
Francisco-Bay Area, Ventura County, and the portion of Placer County 
in the Sacramento Metropolitan 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for 
incorporation into its SIP on April 5 and May 13, 1991 and June 19, 
1992, including the rules being acted on in this document. This 
document addresses EPA's proposed action for Yolo-Solano APCD's Rule 
2.24-Solvent Cleaning Operations, Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.6-
Surface Cleaning and Degreasing and Placer County APCD's Rule 216-
Degreasing Operations. These submitted rules were found to be complete 
on the following dates: Rule 2.24, July 10, 1991; Rule 74.6, August 27, 
1992; and Rule 216, May 21, 1991. These rules were found to be complete 
pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR 
part 51, appendix V4 and are being proposed for approval into the 
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These submitted rules control VOC emissions from solvent degreasing 
operations. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and 
smog. The rules were adopted as part of each district's 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. The following is EPA's evaluation and proposed action for 
these rules.

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's interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA 
policy guidance documents listed in footnote 2. 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 CTG 
applicable to all of the rules in this document is EPA-450/2-77-022, 
``Control of Volatile Organic emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning.'' 
Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, 
referred to in footnote 2. 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's Rule 2.24, Solvent Cleaning Operations, 
includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:

    1. Revised and expanded the ``definitions'' section.
    2. Revised the ``exemptions'' section.
    3. Deleted Air Pollution Control Officer discretion for selection 
of test methods.
    4. Added recordkeeping requirements and test methods.
    5. With regard to cold solvent cleaning, changed all reference 
points from vapor pressure to initial boiling point of the solvent 
which is more easily measured (as determined by ASTM D-1078-78).

    Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.6, Surface Cleaning and Degreasing, 
includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:

    1. Added an applicability section.
    2. Expanded the ``Definitions'' section.
    3. Added recordkeeping requirements, i.e. records for solvent 
makeup, solvent disposal, and total solvent used by type.
    4. Added specific test methods approved by the EPA.
    5. Expanded operating requirements for the different degreasing 
operations through the incorporation of Ventura County APCD Rules 
74.6.1, 74.6.2, and 74.6.3.
    6. Incorporated the initial boiling point of solvents (as measured 
by ASTM 1078-78) for determining applicability in place of vapor 
pressure.
    7. Included more stringent vapor control and emission collection 
provisions for open top vapor degreasers.

    Placer County APCD's Rule 216, Degreasing Operations includes the 
following significant changes from the current SIP:

    1. Expanded and refined the definitions section.
    2. Added recordkeeping and compliance schedule requirements.
    3. Added a requirement for immediate repair of leaks or system 
shutdown.
    4. Removed the exemption for small vapor and conveyorized 
degreasers.
    5. Added an exemption for small cold cleaners.
    6. Deleted APCO discretion in determining equivalency of equipment 
or procedures.
    7. Replaced vapor pressure with initial boiling point of solvent 
(as defined by ASTM 1078-78) for determining applicability.

    EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they 
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, Yolo-Solano APCD's Rule 2.24-Solvent Cleaning Operations, 
Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.6-Surface Cleaning and Degreasing, and 
Placer County APCD's Rule 216-Degreasing Operations, are being proposed 
for approval 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 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.
    SIP 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, 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).
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225) as revised by an October 4, 1993, 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of 
these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 222) from the 
requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for 2 years. The EPA 
has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table 3 
SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to continue the waiver until such time as 
it rules on EPA's request. This request continues in effect under 
Executive Order 12866 which superseded Executive Order 12291 on 
September 30, 1993.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: March 24, 1994.
David A. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-7990 Filed 4-1-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F