[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 236 (Friday, December 9, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30328]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 9, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 125-1-6804a; FRL-5119-7]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Diego County Air Pollution
Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a revision to the California State
Implementation Plan (SIP). The revision concerns the control of
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from metal parts and products
coating operations.
The intended effect of proposing approval 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 NPRM will incorporate this rule into the federally approved
SIP. In addition, final action on this rule will serve as a final
determination that deficiencies in the rule identified by EPA in a
limited approval/limited disapproval action on May 13, 1993 have been
corrected and that any sanctions or Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
obligations are permanently stopped. An Interim Final Determination
published in today's Federal Register will defer the imposition of
sanctions until EPA takes final rulemaking action. EPA has evaluated
this rule and is proposing to approve it pursuant to the 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 January 9, 1995.
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 94105-3901.
Copies of the rule revision 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 revision are also
available for inspection at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket 6102, 401 ``M'' Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake
Drive, San Diego, CA 92123-1095.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen Liu, Rulemaking Section [A-5-3],
Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Applicability
The rule being proposed for approval into the California SIP is San
Diego County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Rule 67.3, Metal
Parts and Products Coating Operations. This rule was submitted by the
California Air Resources Board to EPA on November 23, 1994.
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 San Diego County. 43 FR
8964; 40 CFR 81.305. Because this area was 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 52.222.) On May 26, 1988, EPA
notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H)
of the pre-amended Act, that San Diego County's portion of the
California 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, 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. 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.\1\
EPA's SIP-Call used that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections
for specific nonattainment areas. San Diego is currently classified as
a severe ozone nonattainment area;\2\ therefore, this area was subject
to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\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).
\2\San Diego County retained its designation of nonattainment
and classified by operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and
181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See 55 FR 56694
(November 6, 1991).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State of California submitted San Diego County APCD Rule 67.3,
Metal Parts and Products Coating Operations, for incorporation into its
SIP on November 23, 1994. This document addresses EPA's proposed action
for Rule 67.3, which the district adopted on November 1, 1994. The
submitted rule was found to be complete on December 1, 1994 pursuant to
EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,
appendix V\3\ and is being proposed for approval into the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 67.3 controls VOC emissions from operations that involve the
coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. VOCs contribute to
the production of ground-level ozone and smog. The rule was adopted as
part of the 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 interpretation of these requirements,
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA
policy guidance documents listed in footnote 1. 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 this rule is entitled, ``Control of Volatile Organic
Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources - Volume VI: Surface Coating
of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'' [EPA-450/2-78-015]. Further
interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, referred to
in footnote 1. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth
to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or
maintain the SIP. On May 13, 1993 [58 FR 28357], EPA gave a limited
approval/limited disapproval to an earlier version of San Diego County
APCD Rule 67.3. The latest version of Rule 67.3, adopted on November 1,
1994, includes the following significant changes from the current SIP
rule:
The applicability of this rule to certain coatings has
been clarified.
A variety of recordkeeping requirements have been added.
Exemptions have been added for certain coatings.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\EPA has determined that emissions resulting from the
exemptions do not represent a significant difference from the
allowable emissions under the applicable CTG standards and that they
fall within the ``5% Rule'' in the Blue Book. The ``5% Rule'' allows
states to depart from a CTG standard upon a demonstration that the
departure results in ``no significant difference'' in emissions
(i.e. less than 5% from the CTG allowable). EPA has further
determined that this change will not interfere with any applicable
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress
(as defined in section 7501 of the Act), or any other applicable
requirement of the Act pursuant to section 110(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definitions have been added or adjusted to clarify the
rule.
Future effective dates for pretreatment wash primer and
high performance architectural coatings were removed, and CTG standards
for these two coatings are now included with other specialty coatings.
The usage requirements for VOC-containing materials for
surface preparation or cleanup were clarified.
The Air Pollution Control Officer's discretion to approve
an alternative recordkeeping plan has been removed.
Many new test methods have been added to the rule.
EPA has evaluated the submitted rule and has determined that it is
consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,
San Diego County APCD Rule 67.3, Metal Parts and Products Coating
Operations, is 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).
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: December 1, 1994.
Nora L. McGee,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 94-30328 Filed 12-8-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W