[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 46 (Friday, March 8, 2002)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10653-10656]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5601]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA247-0299; FRL-7149-4]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, South 
Coast 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 South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These 
revisions concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
several source categories such as aerospace manufacturing and coating, 
metal parts coating, wood products coating, and fiberglass composite 
manufacturing. We are proposing action on a local rule, Rule 1132, 
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 April 8, 2002.

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, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 
21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-
4111.

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.
    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 SCAQMD and submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Local agency               Rule No.             Rule title              Adopted           Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCAQMD.......................               1132  Further Control of VOC             01/19/01           05/08/01
                                                   Emissions from High-
                                                   Emitting Spray Booth
                                                   Facilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 20, 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?

    There is no previous version of Rule 1132 in the SIP and there are 
no extant submittals of Rule 1132 beyond the submittal in today's 
action.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

    SCAQMD Rule 1132 is a rule designed to reduce volatile organic 
compound (VOC) emissions at industrial sites engaged high emitting 
spray booth operations such as aerospace manufacturing facilities, 
miscellaneous metal parts coating operations, wood products coating 
operations, and fiberglass composite manufacturing facilities. VOCs are 
emitted during the preparation and coating of the given substrate, as 
well as the drying phase of the coating process. Rule 1132 establishes 
a 65% VOC emission reduction requirement either by add-on controls, by 
coating formulation, or a combination of either technique. SCAQMD's 
Rule 1132 includes the following provisions:

--Rule purpose and applicability;
--Definitions of terms used within the rule;
--Emission reduction requirements;
--Alternative compliance plans;
--Compliance schedules;

[[Page 10654]]

--Test methods for determining compliance with the rule;
--Record keeping to demonstrate compliance with the rule; and,
--Exemptions from the rule.
    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 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 
SCAQMD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR 81), so Rule 
1132 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.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    This rule improves the SIP by seeking additional VOC emission 
reductions from these high VOC emitting facilities. This rule is mostly 
consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding 
enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. However, there are Rule 1132 
provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria; these provisions 
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. In general, Section (d) 
Alternative Compliance Plans allows for ``director's discretion.'' This 
section does not specify the emission estimation protocols needed to 
evaluate alternative compliance plans for compliance with the rule. 
Specific section (d) provisions are discussed below.
    1. Section (d)(1) describes a series of actions that composite 
manufacturing facilities must comply with as part of submitting an 
Alternative Compliance Plan. SCAQMD states that these measures can be 
expected to achieve a facility average of 40% reductions while new 
techniques are developed by 2004 that will achieve the 65% VOC 
reduction requirement of the rule. However, the rule needs to specify 
how compliance with the 65% requirement will be demonstrated.
    2. Section (d)(3) does not delimit ``director's discretion'' in any 
manner. Such discretion should be delimited by emission estimation 
protocols and specific criteria for judging compliance.
    As an alternative to specific estimation protocols and emission 
factors, Section (d) can be amended to include language specifying EPA 
review and approval of all alternative compliance plans.

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 1132 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 Rule 1132 has been adopted by the SCAQMD, 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 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 13211

    This proposed rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 Fed. Reg. 28355 (May 22, 2001)) 
because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 
12866.

C. 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

[[Page 10655]]

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 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. 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.

F. 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).

G. 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.

H. 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

[[Page 10656]]

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.

    Dated: October 4, 2001.
Sally Seymour,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-5601 Filed 3-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P