[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 154 (Wednesday, August 9, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48652-48655]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-20123]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 224-0253; FRL-6848-5]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura 
County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
a revision to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's 
(VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
surface cleaning and degreasing. We are proposing action on a local 
rule that regulates this emission source under the Clean Air Act as 
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this 
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 8, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions 
at the following locations:
    California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.
    Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square 
Dr., 2nd Fl., Ventura, CA 93003-5417.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule.
    E. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background Information
    A. Why was this rule submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date 
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Local agency               Rule #           Rule title                Adopted           Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCAPCD............................       74.6  Surface Cleaning and        11/10/98..........  02/16/99
                                                Degreasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 23, 1999, this rule submittal was found to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met 
before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

    We approved a version of Rule 74.6 into the SIP on December 13, 
1994. The VCAPCD adopted a revision to the SIP-approved version on July 
9, 1996 and CARB submitted it to us on October 18, 1996. While we can 
act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed 
materials provided with the previous submittal.

[[Page 48653]]

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?

    Rule 74.6 limits surface cleaning and degreasing activities 
performed with solvents containing VOCs. The TSD has more information 
about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and 
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The 
VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so 
Rule 74.6 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``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 published in the 
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    3. The Control Technique Guideline (CTG) entitled, Control of 
Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning (November 1977; 
EPA-450/2-77-022),
    4. The CARB document entitled, Determination of Reasonably 
Available Control Technology and Best Available Control Technology for 
Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations (July 18, 1991)

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    This rule improves the SIP by establishing more stringent emission 
limits and specifying appropriate cleaning devices and methods. This 
rule is largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance 
regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions 
which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and 
discussed further in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act 
and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
    1. Rule 74.6 contains two director's discretion clauses. Under 
Section C, a person is allowed to petition the Board for a variance 
from specific provisions of the rule. Under Section C2a the APCO is 
given authority to approve alternative cleaning devices. These two 
sections of Rule 74.6 are unapprovable because they allow the APCO to 
change SIP requirements.
    2. Section C1f contains a reference to Rule 74.32, Electronic 
Manufacturing Operations. Rule 74.32 has never been submitted for 
approval into the SIP. The reference creates confusion over the rule's 
applicability.
    3. Section D requires that records of a solvent's intended uses, 
content, mix ratio be recorded. Although the types of records that must 
be maintained are specified, the frequency of records is not but should 
be specified.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP. 
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the 
SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval 
is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited 
disapproval of the rule under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is 
finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act 
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule 
deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed 
according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the 
federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). 
Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the VCAPCD, and EPA's 
final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from 
enforcing it.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states 
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of 
the national milestones leading to the submittal of this local agency 
VOC rule.

                Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978..........................  EPA promulgated a list of ozone
                                          nonattainment areas under the
                                          Clean Air Act as amended in
                                          1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
                                          81.305.
May 26, 1988...........................  EPA notified Governors that
                                          parts of their SIPs were
                                          inadequate to attain and
                                          maintain the ozone standard
                                          and requested that they
                                          correct the deficiencies
                                          (EPA's SIP-Call). See section
                                          110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-
                                          amended Act.
November 15, 1990......................  Clean Air Act Amendments of
                                          1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-
                                          549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified
                                          at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
May 15, 1991...........................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires
                                          that ozone nonattainment areas
                                          correct deficient RACT rules
                                          by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

[[Page 48654]]

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 OMB 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 proposed 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 proposed 
rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled 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, 
because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, 
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
proposed 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 proposed 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 act on 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.
    EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110 
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any 
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing 
federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state 
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, 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 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the 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 proposed action does not include a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or 
to the private sector. This proposed Federal action acts on 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.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action 
because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive 
to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compound.


[[Page 48655]]


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

    Dated: July 28, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-20123 Filed 8-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P