[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