[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