[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 130 (Friday, July 6, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35573-35576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16947]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA245-0242; FRL-7008-4]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). These revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) 
emissions from the miscellaneous metal parts source category. We are 
proposing action on a local rule regulating these emission sources 
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 August 6, 2001.

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 documents (TSDs) 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, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and,
    San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 
East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-
1226.

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 revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating this rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule's deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule.
    E. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background information.
    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 SJVUAPCD and submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                   Rule #             Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD....................................     4603  Surface Coating of Metal Parts      09/21/00     12/11/00
                                                        and Products.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 8, 2001, EPA found this rule submittal met the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V. These criteria 
must be met before formal EPA review can begin.

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

    We approved a version of Rule 4603 into the SIP on December 1, 
1994. There are no extant submittals of Rule 4603 beyond the submittal 
in today's action.

C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?

    SJVUAPCD Rule 4603 is a rule designed to reduce volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions at industrial sites engaged in metal coating 
operations. VOCs are emitted during the preparation and coating of the 
metal parts, as well as the drying phase of the coating process. Rule 
4603 establishes general emission limits of VOC per liter of coating 
less water and exempt compounds as applied and allows for the use of 
add-on emission controls with a combined capture/control efficiency of 
90 percent.
    SJVUAPCD's September 21, 2000 amendments to Rule 4603 included 
these significant changes to its 1994 SIP-approved version (adopted May 
20, 1993):
    --a definition for solid film lubricant was added (section 3.35);
    --VOC content and viscosity requirements for dip coating and air 
drying of steel joists was added (sections 5.1.3.1 & 5.1.3.2);
    --a specialty coating limit of 880 grams/liter for solid film 
lubricant was added (section 5.2); and,
    --a recordkeeping requirement for viscosity was added (section 
6.2.3.2).
    The TSD has more information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating this rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available

[[Page 35574]]

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 SJVAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment 
area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4603 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 document,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in 
the May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    3. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary 
Sources Volume VI: Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products,'' USEPA, June 1978, EPA-450/2-78-015.

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?

    This rule improves the SIP by establishing emission and viscosity 
limits for structural steel dip coating and recordkeeping provisions. 
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's deficiencies?

    These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act 
and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
    1. The language in Section 4.1 allows at least two competing 
interpretations of the rule. This section should be revised to allow 
only one interpretation consistent with EPA guidance and policy 
concerning rule applicability, size cut-offs, and allowable non-
compliant coating use. District practice of exempting fifteen pounds 
per day of non-compliant VOC emissions from all sources contradicts the 
intent of the size cutoff requirements of EPA's RACT Guidance. 
Furthermore, this practice is inconsistent with EPA policy providing 
for no more than 55 gallons of non-compliant coating use per rolling 12 
month period.
    2. Rule 4603 sets a viscosity limit for dip coating of structural 
steel components. However, SJVUAPCD did not provide a test method for 
determining compliance with this viscosity limit.
    3. Rule 4603 incorporates a solid film lubricant specialty category 
emissions limit of 880 gr/l. This limit exceeds the CTG limit of 420 
gr/l.

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 rule.

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 Rule 4603 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. Also, a final disapproval would trigger the 
federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). 
Unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions correcting the rule's 
deficiencies within 24 months, EPA must produce a FIP. Note that the 
submitted Rule 4603 has been adopted by the SJVUAPCD, 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

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 these local agency 
VOC rules.

                 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 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 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875,

[[Page 35575]]

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.

D. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This proposed rule does not have tribal implications. It will not 
have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the 
relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on 
the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. In the spirit 
of Executive Order 13175, and consistent with EPA policy to promote 
communications between EPA and tribal governments, EPA specifically 
solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal 
officials.

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 
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.

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


[[Page 35576]]


    Dated: June 15, 2001.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-16947 Filed 7-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P