[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 12 (Wednesday, January 19, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2921-2924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1212]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA184-0212; FRL-6526-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District, South Coast Air Quality Management District, San Diego County 
Air Pollution Control District, and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions from automobile refinishing, coating and ink 
manufacturing and use of cutback asphalt.
    The intended effect of proposing approval of these rules 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 proposed rule will incorporate these rules into the federally 
approved SIP. EPA has evaluated each of these rules and is proposing to 
approve them under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

[[Page 2922]]

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 February 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each 
rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office 
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions 
are also available for inspection at the following locations:
    Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105
    Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' 
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
    California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812
    Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94109
    South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley, 
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
    Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver 
Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940
    San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake 
Drive, San Diego, CA 92123

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, (415) 744-1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being proposed for approval into the California SIP 
include: Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Rule 8.45--
Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operation, South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 1151--Motor Vehicle and 
Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operation, San Diego County 
Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD) Rule 67.19--Coatings and 
Printing Inks Manufacturing Operations, and Monterey Bay Unified Air 
Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) Rule 425, Use of Cutback Asphalt. 
These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
to EPA on August 1, 1997, February 16, 1999, October 18, 1996, and June 
3, 1997 respectively.

II. 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 the San Francisco Bay 
Area, the South Coast Air Basin, San Diego County, and the North 
Central Coast Air Basin. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, 
EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section 
110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act, that the above districts' portions 
of the California SIP were 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. The San 
Francisco Bay Area, the South Coast Air Basin, and the San Diego Area 
are all designated nonattainment and are subject to the RACT fix-up 
requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Among other things, pre-amendment guidance includes those 
portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy 
concerning 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'' (notice of availability published in the Federal Register 
on May 25, 1988); and existing control technique guidelines (CTGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for 
incorporation into its SIP on August 1, 1997 (8.45), February 16, 1999 
(1151), October 18, 1996 (67.19) and June 3, 1997 (425) including the 
rules being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's 
proposed action for BAAQMD Rule 8.45--Motor Vehicle and Mobile 
Equipment Coating Operations, SCAQMD Rule 1151--Motor Vehicle and 
Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating Operations, SDCAPCD Rule 
67.19--Coatings and Printing Inks Manufacturing Operations and MCAPCD 
Rule 425--Use of Cutback Asphalt. BAAQMD amended Rule 8.45 on November 
6, 1996, SCAQMD amended Rule 1151 on December 11, 1998, SDCAPCD amended 
Rule 67.19 on May 15, 1996 and MBUAPCD adopted Rule 425 on March 26, 
1997. These submitted rules were found to be complete on May 6, 1997 
(8.45), April 23, 1999 (1151), December 19, 1996 (67.19) and September 
5, 1997 (425). pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set 
forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V and are being proposed for approval 
into the SIP.
    BAAQMD's Rule 8.45 and SCAQMD's Rule 1151 control emissions of VOCs 
from the refinishing of automobiles, SDCAPCD's Rule 67.19 controls the 
emissions of VOCs produced in the manufacturing process of coatings and 
printing inks, and MBUAPCD's Rule 425 controls VOCs from use of cutback 
asphalt. VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone and 
smog. The rules were adopted as part of each 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.

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 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 in 
nonattainment areas. 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

[[Page 2923]]

Agency policy, for requiring States to ``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See 
section 182(a)(2)(A). The CTG applicable to Rule 425 is entitled, 
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Use of Cutback Asphalt. EPA-
450/2/77/037, December 1977. Rules 8.45, 1151, 67.19 control VOCs from 
source categories for which EPA has not issued a Control Techniques 
Guideline (CTG). Therefore these rules were evaluated against the 
general RACT requirements of the Clean Air Act (section 110 and part 
D), 40 CFR part 51, Issues relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, 
Deficiencies, and Deviations--Clarifications to Appendix D of November 
24, 1978 Federal Register: May 25,1988 (EPA's Blue Book) and other EPA 
policy including the EPA Region 9/CARB document entitled, Guidance 
Document for Correcting VOC Deficiencies. Additionally, Rule 67.19 was 
evaluated against the technical guidance document, entitled ``Control 
of VOC Emissions from Ink and Paint Manufacturing Processes''--EPA-450/
3/92-013, April 1992, and compared for consistency with rules from 
other districts for the same source category. In general, these 
guidance documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are 
fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
    On December 23, 1997, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 
8.45--Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations that had 
been adopted by BAAQMD on December 20, 1995. BAAQMD's submitted Rule 
8.45 Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations includes the 
following significant changes from the current SIP:
     Section 231, Volatile Organic Compounds, was amended by 
adding acetone, parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), and cyclic, 
branched, or linear, fullymethylated siloxanes (VMS) to the list of 
exempt compounds in conformance with EPA and CARB action.
     Section 601, ``Analysis of Samples'' was amended by adding 
BAAQMD method 41 to analyze samples containing PCBTF, and BAAQMD method 
43 to analyze samples containing VMS.
     Section 602, ``Determination of Emissions'' was amended by 
adding the following sentence: For the purpose of determining abatement 
device efficiency, any acetone, PCBTF or VMS shall be included as a 
VOC.
    On August 13, 1999, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 
1151--Motor Vehicles and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating 
Operations that had been adopted by SCAQMD on June 13, 1997. SCAQMD's 
submitted Rule 1151--Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly 
Line Coating Operations includes the following significant changes from 
the current SIP:
     Effective December 12, 1998 and until April 1, 1999 the 
Group II multistage topcoat composite VOC limit was raised to 4.5 lbs/
gal. The pre-December 12, 1998 limit of 3.5 lbs/gal limit was 
reinstated on April 1, 1999.
     A 10% usage limitation on a monthly basis was added for 
specialty coatings.
     Expanded the prohibition of sale clause.
     Added the requirement that manufacturers must offer for 
sale by January 1, 1999 clearcoats having VOC content of 2.1 lbs/gal or 
less.
     Added an exemption for topcoats applied to prototype motor 
vehicles.
    There is currently no version of SDCAPCD's Rule 67.19--Coatings and 
Printing Inks Manufacturing Operations in the SIP. The submitted Rule 
includes the following provisions:
     Applicability section.
     Exemption for sources emitting less than 15 lbs/day.
     Sources emitting less than 50 tons/year are exempted from 
the requirements of emission control systems.
     Storage tanks of less than 550 gal capacity, or those used 
exclusively for epoxies or water based coatings are exempted from the 
requirement of submerged fill pipes.
     A definition section.
     Equipment and workmanship standards.
     Option to comply by using abatement equipment.
     Record keeping provisions, and
     Test methods.

Earlier versions of this rule were adopted on June 7, 1994, and March 
7, 1995. While EPA can only act on the most recently submitted version, 
EPA reviewed relevant materials associated with the superceded 
versions.
    On February 5, 1996, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 
425--Use of Cutback Asphalt that had been adopted by MBUAPCD on August 
25, 1993. MBUAPCD's submitted Rule 425--Use of Cutback Asphalt includes 
the following significant changes from the current SIP:
     Use of the term ``petroleum solvent'' is now used 
consistently throughout the rule. Prior to this revision, the term 
organic solvents and petroleum solvents were used interchangeably 
leading to confusion in the implementation and enforcement of the rule. 
The rule has been revised to enhance clarity.
     An additional change was made to the ``effective date'' 
section. The rule as revised is now effective on the date of adoption.
    EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they 
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, BAAQMD Rule 8-45--Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating 
Operations, SCAQMD Rule 1151--Motor Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Non-
Assembly Line Coating Operations, SDCAPCD Rule 67.19--Coatings and 
Printing Inks Manufacturing Operations, and MBUAPCD Rule 425--Use of 
Cutback Asphalt are being proposed for approval under section 110(k)(3) 
of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 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 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 Executive 
Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

[[Page 2924]]

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 
Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 13045 because it 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 
Executive Order 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, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compound.

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

    Dated: January 7, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-1212 Filed 1-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P