[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-23024]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: September 16, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 71-5-6392; FRL-50723]

 

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revisions; San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control District, et al.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from surface coasting of metal parts and 
products.
    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 (NPRM) 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 October 17, 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 IX, 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105.
    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, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 
Tuolumne Street, suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 M Street, Suite 290, 
Bakersfield, CA 93301.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section 
(A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: 
(415) 744-1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 3, 1778, 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 following eight air 
pollution control districts (APCDs): Fresno County APCD, Kern County 
APCD,\1\ Kings County APCD, Madera County APCD, Merced County APCD, San 
Joaquin County APCD, Stanislaus County APCD, and Tulare County APCD. 43 
FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. Because some of 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.\2\ 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). 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 amend 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\At that time, Kern County included portions of two air 
basins: 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 of Kern County was designated as unclassified. See 40 CFR 
81.305 (1991).
    \2\This extension was not requested for the following counties: 
Kern, Kings, Madera, Merced and Tulare. Thus, the attainment date 
for these counties remained December 31, 1982.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 20, 1991, the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District (SJVUAPCD) was formed. The SJVUAPCD has authority over 
the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin which includes all of the above eight 
counties except for the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion of Kern 
County. Thus, Country Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) still 
exists, but only has authority 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 pre-amended guidance.\3\ EPA's SIP-Call used that 
guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific 
nonattainment areas. APCDs found in the San Joaquin Valley Basin (now 
collectively known as the SJVUAPCD) are classified as serious;\4\ 
therefore, these areas were subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and 
the May 15, 1991 deadline. KCAPCD was subject to EPA's SIP-Call, but 
was not subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 
deadline.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Among other things, the pre-amended 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).
    \4\The San Joaquin Valley Air basin retained its designation and 
was classified by operation of law pursuant to section 107(d) and 
section 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See 56 FR 
56694 (November 6, 1991).
    \5\KCAPCD was not subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the 
May 15, 1991 deadline because the Southeast Desert Air Basin portion 
of Kern County was not a pre-enactment nonattainment area, and thus, 
was not automatically designated nonattainment on the date of 
enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. (See sections 
107(d) and 182(a)(2)(A) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990.) 
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 fix-up requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for 
incorporation into its SIP on May 30, 1991, including the rules being 
acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's proposed 
action for SJVUAPCD Rule 4603, Surface Coating of Metal parts and 
Products and KCAPCD Rule 410.4, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and 
Products. SJVUAPCD adopted Rule 4603 on May 20, 1993 and KCAPCD adopted 
Rule 410.4 on July 12, 1993. These submitted rules were found to be 
complete on December 23, 1993 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria 
that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V\6\ and are being 
proposed for approval into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 (See 56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Both rules control the emission of VOCs from the surface coating of 
metal parts and products. 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)(20(A) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and 
proposed action for these two 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 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. 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 Rules 4603 and 410.4 is entitled, Control of Volatile 
Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume VI: Surface 
Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products., EPA document # 
EPA-450/2-78-015. Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in 
the Blue Book, referred to in footnote 3. In general, these guidance 
documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully 
enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
    SJVUAPCD's submitted Rule 4603 will replace the existing surface 
coating of metal parts and products rules of the eight APCDs of the 
SJVUAPCD and KCAPCD's submitted Rule 410.4 will replace the existing 
rule for the southeast desert portion of Kern County. Both rules were 
adopted to control emissions from surface coating of metal parts and 
products through regulation of VOC content in coatings, storage and 
cleanup requirements, and other administrative procedures.
    SJVUAPCD Rule 4603 includes the following revisions from the 
current SIP rules:
     Reduction of VOC limits for specialty coatings to 420 
grams per liter for consistency with the CTG;
    Revision downward to 15 pounds per day or less (existing 
rules allow up to 50 pounds per day) of VOC emissions that a facility 
may emit and be exempt from this rule;
     Addition of VOC standards for specialty coatings;
     Revision of the calculation of grams of VOC per liter of 
coating applied and grams of VOC per liter of material to include 
subtraction of exempt compounds and water;
     Addition of and requirements;
     Specification of test methods to be used for compliance 
determination;
     Addition of surface preparation and cleanup provisions;
     Deletion of provision allowing alternative emission 
control requirements as approved by the executive officer;
     Deletion of transfer efficiency requirement.
    KCAPCD Rule 410.4 includes the following revisions from the current 
SIP rule:
     Revision of several definitions for consistency with EPA 
requirements;
     Reduction of VOC limits for specialty coatings to 420 
grams of VOC per liter of coating;
     Labelling requirements have been amended to incorporate 
language suggested by EPA;
     The language in the and section has been revised to 
clarify and requirements and to include and for add-on control 
equipment;
     The compliance schedule was updated.
    EPA has evaluated the two submitted rules and has determined that 
they are consistent with the CAA, EPA, regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, SJVUAPCD Rule 4603 and KCAPCD Rule 410.4 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 further 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 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. Unions Electric Co. 
v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).
    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 requirements.

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

    Dated: September 6, 1994.
John C. Wise,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-23024 Filed 9-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M