[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