[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 223 (Friday, November 19, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 63268-63271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-30237]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 235-184; FRL-6478-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Tehama County Air Pollution Control 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA proposes a limited approval of revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning control of volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from organic solvents.
    The intended effect of proposing limited approval of this rule is 
to regulate emissions of VOCs in accordance with the requirements of 
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

[[Page 63269]]

(CAA or the Act). EPA's final action on this proposed rulemaking will 
incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. EPA has 
evaluated the rule and is proposing a limited approval 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 20, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report of the rule is 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal 
business hours. Copies of the submitted rule is also available for 
inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Tehama County Air Pollution Control District, 1750 Walnut Street, P.O. 
Box 38, Red Bluff, CA 96080.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office, 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901; Telephone: (415) 
744-1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rule being proposed for limited approval into the California 
SIP is: Tehama County Air Pollution Control District (THCAPCD) Rule 
4.22, Industrial Use of Organic Solvents. This rule was submitted by 
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on November 25, 1987.

II. Background

    40 CFR 81.305 provides the attainment status designations for air 
districts in California. Tehama County is listed as being in attainment 
for the national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)for ozone. 
Therefore for the purpose of controlling ozone, this rule only needs to 
comply with section 110 of the Act.
    The State of California submitted many revised rules to EPA for 
incorporation into its SIP on November 25, 1987, including the rule 
being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's proposed 
action for Rule 4.22, Industrial Use of Organic Solvents. Tehama County 
adopted Rule 4.22 on August 4, 1987. This submitted rule is being 
proposed for limited approval. Rule 4.22 controls the emission of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from industrial use of organic 
solvents. VOCs are a precursor for ozone. The following is EPA's 
evaluation and proposed action for THCAPCD Rule 4.22.

III. 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 of the CAA and 40 CFR part 51 
(Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittals of 
Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for today's action, appears in various EPA policy 
guidance documents.1 THCAPCD's Rule 4.22 applies to a source 
category that is not covered by an applicable CTG and therefore state 
and local agencies may determine what controls are required by 
reviewing the operation 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 1. In general, the EPA guidance documents have been set 
forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or 
maintain the SIP. While Tehama County is in attainment with the ozone 
NAAQS, many of the general SIP requirements regarding enforceability, 
for example, are still appropriate for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 
document'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the 
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control 
technique guidelines (CTGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    There is currently no version of THCAPCD, Rule 4.22, Industrial use 
of Organic Solvents in the SIP. The submitted rule includes the 
following significant provisions:
     Section (a) a prohibition of discharges of more than 15 
lbs of VOCs from any article, machine, equipment or contrivance in 
which organic solvents or any material containing organic solvents 
comes into contact with flame or is baked, heat cured, or heat 
polymerized, in the presence of oxygen at temperatures above 400 deg.F.
     Section (b) a prohibition against discharging more than 40 
lbs of VOCs from any article, machine, equipment or contrivance used 
under conditions other than described under (a).
     The rule allows the use of emission control equipment to 
reduce the discharge to no more than the limits specified in sections 
(a) and (b).
     Section (d)(1) establishes a VOC daily maximum emission 
limit of 450 lbs for facilities applying polyester resins in fiberglass 
reinforced plastic fabrication.
     Incorporates by reference VOC emission limits and other 
provisions contained in 40 CFR 52.254, November 12, 1973, Volume 38, 
No. 217.

EPA has evaluated THCAPCD's submitted Rule 4.22 for consistency with 
the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the rule 
will strengthen the SIP. However the rule contains the following 
deficiencies:
     A director's discretion to choose and approve test methods 
to determine conformance,
     Lack of specified test methods or monitoring protocol,
     No recordkeeping provisions.
    A detailed discussion of the rule deficiencies can be found in the 
Technical Support Document for THCAPCD Rule 4.22, which is available 
from the U.S. EPA, Region IX office.
    Because the deficiencies identified in this rule may cause 
enforceability problems, EPA cannot grant full approval under 
110(k)(3). Also, because the submitted rule is not composed of 
separable parts which meet all the applicable parts 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 to advance the Act's air quality protection 
goals by strengthening the SIP. In order to strengthen the SIP by 
advancing the ozone air quality protection goal of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of THCAPCD's Rule 4.22 under sections 
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act. However this limited approval would 
not approve Rule 4.22 as satisfying any other specific requirement of 
the act, nor would it constitute full approval of Rule 4.22 pursuant to 
section 110(k)(3). Rather, a limited approval of this rule by EPA would 
mean that the emission limitations and other control measure 
requirements become part of the California SIP and are federally 
enforceable by EPA. See, e.g. sections 302(q) and 113 of the Act.

[[Page 63270]]

    It should be noted that the rule covered by this proposed 
rulemaking has been adopted by and is currently in effect in TCAPCD. 
EPA's final limited approval action will not prevent THCAPCD or EPA 
from enforcing this rule.

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 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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. 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping

[[Page 63271]]

requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: November 5, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-30237 Filed 11-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P