[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 149 (Thursday, August 2, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 40168-40170]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-19323]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 241-0255; FRL-7022-9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Bay Area 
Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) 
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
storage of organic liquids and leaking equipment at petroleum 
refineries, chemical plants, bulk plants and bulk terminals. We are 
proposing action on local rules that regulate 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 September 4, 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
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94109


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-
1197.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background Information
    Why were these rules submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What rules did the State submit?
    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAAQMD.....................................     8-5     Storage of Organic Liquids....     12/15/99     03/28/00
BAAQMD.....................................    8-18     Equipment Leaks...............     01/07/98     03/28/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 19, 2000, 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. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

    Revisions to Rule 8-5, Storage of Organic Liquids, are intended to:
     Implement a control measure for slotted guide poles.
     Modify requirements for primary metallic-shoe type seals 
used in internal floating roof tanks containing organic liquids that 
produce ozone forming air pollutants.
    Revisions to Rule 8-18, Equipment Leaks, are intended to:
     Consolidate the regulation of fugitives in a single rule, 
transferring provisions contained in District Rule 8-25, Pumps and 
Compressor Seals at Petroleum Refineries, Chemical Plants, Bulk Plants 
and Bulk Terminals, to Rule 8-18. District Rule 8-25 is being deleted.
     Provide a more stringent leak standard for pressure relief 
devices.
     Add compliance options to allow the use of new leak and 
detection and repair technology.
    The TSDs have more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    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 
BAAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so 
Rules 8-5 and 8-18 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.

[[Page 40169]]

    3. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid 
Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-78-047.
    4. ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Petroleum Liquid 
Storage in Fixed Roof Tanks,'' EPA-450/2-77-036.
    5. ``Control of Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic 
Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing Equipment,'' EPA-450/3-83-
006.
    6. ``Model Volatile Organic Compounds Rules for Reasonably 
Available Control Technology,'' Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, June 1992.

B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

    These rules improve the SIP by establishing more stringent emission 
limits and by implementing new control measures for slotted guide 
poles. These rules are 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 8-5 exempts sources from control requirements during 
certain startup, shutdown, and maintenance conditions in violation of 
EPA's 1999 guidance on excess emission during malfunctions, startup, 
and shutdown.
    2. Rule 8-18 contains director's discretion in the allowance of 
compliance options and the use of new leak detection and repair 
technology without EPA approval.

D. 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 rules to improve the SIP. 
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rules into 
the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This 
approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited 
disapproval of the rules 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 rules have been adopted by the BAAQMD, and 
EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from 
enforcing them.
    We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited 
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

Why Were These Rules 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

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
proposed action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and 
therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and 
Budget. For this reason, this proposed action is also not subject to 
Executive Order 32111, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 
28355, May 22, 2001). This proposed action merely approves state law as 
meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements 
beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator 
certifies that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule proposes to 
approve pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose 
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it 
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely 
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform 
Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). This rule also does not have a 
substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it 
merely approves 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. This proposed rule 
also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), because it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

[[Page 40170]]

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the 
requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and 
Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required 
by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), 
in issuing this proposed rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to 
eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, 
and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has 
complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by 
examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the 
``Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk 
and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings' issued under the executive 
order. This proposed rule does not impose an information collection 
burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

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: July 24, 2001.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-19323 Filed 8-1-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P