[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 173 (Wednesday, September 8, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48739-48741]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-23280]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 229-0177; FRL-6433-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District, Project XL Site-specific Rulemaking for Imation Corp. 
Camarillo Plant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of volatile 
organic compound (VOC) emissions, and are applicable only to the 
Imation Corp. facility in Camarillo, CA (Imation) as part of the EPA's 
Imation XL Project. See 64 FR 37785, July 13, 1999. By this document, 
EPA solicits comment on the proposed rule.
    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) and to facilitate 
implementation of the XL Project at Imation. Such implementation will 
result in superior environmental performance and, at the same time, 
provide Imation with greater operational flexibility.
    EPA's final action on this proposed rule will incorporate the rule 
into the federally approved SIP. EPA has evaluated this rule and is 
proposing to approve it 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 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments. Written comments should be submitted in duplicate 
to: David Albright, Permits Office (AIR-3), Air Division, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Docket. A docket containing supporting information used in 
developing this rulemaking, including copies of the State submittal, 
the rule, and EPA's evaluation report of the rule are available for 
public inspection and copying at U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA during normal business hours. Copies of the 
rule and related documents are also available for inspection at the 
following location: Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 
County Square Drive, Ventura, CA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Albright, Permits Office (AIR-
3), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1627 or 
Daniel Reich, Office of Regional Counsel (RC-2-2), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105-3901, (415) 744-1343. In addition, the proposed rule and 
supporting documents are also available on the world wide web at the 
following location: http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rule being proposed for approval into the California SIP is 
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, VCAPCD, Rule 37 
``Project XL.'' This rule was submitted by the California Air Resources 
Board to EPA on July 30, 1999.

II. Background

    The proposed California SIP revision is designed to implement a 
pilot project developed under Project XL, an important EPA initiative 
to allow regulated entities to achieve better environmental results at 
less cost. Project XL--for ``eXcellence and Leadership''--was announced 
on March 16, 1995, as a central part of the National Performance 
Review's and EPA's effort to reinvent environmental protection. See 60 
FR 27282 (May 23, 1995). In addition, on April 22, 1997, EPA modified 
its guidance on Project XL, solicited new XL proposals, clarified EPA 
definitions, and described changes intended to bring greater efficiency 
to the process of developing XL projects. See 62 FR 19872 (April 22, 
1997). The Imation XL Project was the subject of a recent Federal 
Register notice announcing the proposed implementation of the project, 
making available the proposed Final Project Agreement (FPA), and 
soliciting public comment on the FPA and the project overall. See 64 FR 
37785, July 13, 1999.
    EPA is proposing SIP approval of Rule 37 under a procedure called 
parallel processing, whereby EPA proposes rulemaking action 
concurrently with the State's procedures for amending its

[[Page 48740]]

regulations. See 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. If the proposed revision 
is substantially changed in areas other than those identified in the 
proposed rulemaking, EPA will evaluate those changes and may publish 
another proposed rule. If no substantial changes are made other than 
those areas cited in the proposal, EPA will publish a final rulemaking 
on the revisions. The final rulemaking action by EPA will occur only 
after the SIP revision has been adopted by California and submitted 
formally to EPA for incorporation into the SIP. On August 23, 1999, EPA 
reviewed Rule 37 for completeness and found that the rule conforms to 
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (criteria for 
plans submitted explicitly for parallel processing).
    The submitted rule authorizes Imation to implement a plantwide 
applicability limit (PAL) for reactive organic compounds 
(ROCs).1 The rule establishes conditions for setting, 
evaluating, renewing, and complying with the VOC PAL. The rule also 
establishes requirements for emission reduction credit (ERC) banking 
and offsetting under the PAL, applying control technology, conducting 
health risk assessments, and implementing any facility changes that are 
pre-approved in Imation's part 70 permit. Finally, the rule exempts 
Imation from District Rules 10 (Permits Required) and 26-26.10 (New 
Source Review) for facility changes implemented in accordance with Rule 
37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The VCAPCD term reactive organic compound ``ROC'' is 
functionally equivalent to EPA's term volatile organic compound 
``VOC.'' In this document, the terms ``volatile organic compound'' 
and ``VOC'' are used.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

    The proposed SIP revision would establish an alternative approach 
that would replace the VCAPCD New Source Review (NSR) program for new 
and modified emission sources at Imation. The SIP revision, which is 
only applicable to the operations at Imation, is a critical element of 
the Imation XL Project as it will ensure that operations at the Imation 
facility that are implemented in accordance with the XL project are not 
in conflict with federally enforceable SIP requirements.
    The proposed SIP revision is comprised of several of the most 
critical terms and conditions from the proposed Imation Final Project 
Agreement (FPA), a document that represents the intentions of all 
parties to the XL Project agreement but that is not legally 
enforceable. By incorporating these terms and conditions into a VCAPCD 
rule that the VCAPCD Board adopts and which is approved into the SIP, 
the main tenets of the FPA will be made enforceable by EPA, the State, 
and citizens. A key element of the proposed SIP revision, and the 
Imation XL project, is the authorization of a PAL for volatile organic 
compounds (VOCs). The VOC PAL, a voluntary VOC emissions cap accepted 
by Imation, is based on actual emissions and provides Imation with the 
flexibility to add and modify emissions units below the PAL level 
without triggering traditional new source review requirements. The 
proposed revision also institutes several unique requirements and 
procedures for operations at the facility, and exempts specified 
Imation activities from two existing VCAPCD rules--Rule 10 (Permits 
Required) and Rule 26 (New Source Review).
    Section 110(a)(2)(C) of the Act requires state programs to 
institute a preconstruction review program, generally referred to as 
``minor NSR.'' VCAPCD's NSR program (See Rule 26) requires new source 
review permitting for ``any new, replacement, modified, or relocated 
emissions unit which would have a potential to emit any * * * Reactive 
Organic Compounds.'' Such permitting under Rule 26 would typically 
require BACT for any ROC emissions (no threshold) and offsets for ROC 
emissions above 5 tpy. In order to provide Imation flexibility with 
regard to Rule 26, EPA is today proposing approval of this source-
specific SIP revision that will apply only to the operations at 
Imation. The source-specific SIP revision would exempt Imation from the 
requirements of Rules 10 and 26, but require the source to keep their 
emissions below the VOC PAL, apply California BACT 2 for 
facility modifications, and follow specified procedures for adding new 
equipment or modifying existing equipment. The requirements contained 
in the source-specific SIP revision, in conjunction with Imation's 
transfer of VOC emission reduction credits (ERCs) to the District, 
assure that any new construction or equipment modification allowed 
under the source's title V permit will be carried out in a manner that 
is at least as environmentally protective as what would have been 
required under Rules 10 and 26. EPA has prepared a Technical Support 
Document (TSD) for this proposed rulemaking which further describes the 
requirements of Rule 37 and EPA's evaluation of the rule. The TSD is 
available as described in the Addresses and For Further Information 
Contact sections of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\  CA BACT, as defined in VCAPCD rules, is equivalent to 
federally defined lowest achievable emissions rate (LAER).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA is proposing to approve the site-specific California SIP 
revision for Imation, which was submitted on July 30, 1999. This 
proposed plan revision is not intended to address any outstanding 
issues with the Ventura County APCD NSR program that will be the 
subject of a future EPA rulemaking on District Rule 26. EPA is 
soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this proposal or 
on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered before 
taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal 
rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA Regional 
office listed in the Addresses section of this action. Copies of the 
proposed site-specific SIP revision and EPA's evaluation of the 
revision are available in the docket for today's action and are also 
available on the world wide web at http://www.epa.gov/ProjectXL.
    The Agency has reviewed this request for revision of the Federally-
approved State implementation plan for conformance with the provisions 
of the 1990 amendments enacted on November 15, 1990. The Agency has 
determined that this action conforms with those requirements 
irrespective of the fact that the submittal preceded the date of 
enactment.
    EPA has evaluated the submitted rule and has determined that it is 
consistent with the CAA and EPA regulations. Therefore, Ventura County 
APCD Rule 37--Project XL--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 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 the relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by 
statute

[[Page 48741]]

and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal government, 
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 
direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does 
not impose any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternatives considered 
by the Agency. This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it is 
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is 
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action applies only to one company, and therefore requires no 
information collection activities subject to the Paperwork Reduction 
Act, and therefore no information collection request (ICR) will be 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review in 
compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.

G. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 
oxides.

    Dated: August 24, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-23280 Filed 9-7-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P