Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-83-3-6675; FRL--5119-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of

revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from

polyester resin operations.

The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited

disapproval of this rule 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 notice of proposed rulemaking will

incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. EPA has

evaluated the rule and is proposing a simultaneous limited approval and

limited disapproval under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on

SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority because this revision,

while strengthening the SIP, does not fully meet the CAA provisions

regarding plan submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before January 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking

Section [Mail Stop A-5-3], Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-3901.

Copies of the new rule and EPA's evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 92123-1095.

Yolo-Solano County Air Pollution Control District 1947 Galileo

Court, Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section

[Mail Stop A-5-3], Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-3901 Telephone: (415) 744-1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 3, 1978 EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment

areas under the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act (1977 CAA or pre-

amended Act), that included the Yolo-Solano County Area. 43 FR 8964; 40

CFR 81.305. Because the Yolo-Solano County Area was unable to reach

attainment by the statutory attainment date of December 31, 1982,

California requested under pre-amended section 172(a)(2), and EPA

approved, an extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1987. 40

CFR 52.222. The Yolo-Solano County Area did not attain the ozone

standard by the approved attainment date. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified

the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the

pre-amended Act, that Yolo-Solano County APCD's portion of the SIP was

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, amendments to the 1977 CAA were enacted. Public Law

101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended

section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA, Congress statutorily required

nonattainment areas to submit reasonably available control technology

(RACT) rules for all major sources of VOCs by November 15, 1992 (the

RACT catch-up requirement).

The Yolo-Solano County Area is classified as serious; the portion

of Solano County in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area is classified as

serious; the portion of Solano County in the San Francisco-Bay Area is

classified as moderate;1 therefore, this area is subject to the

RACT catch-up requirement and the November 15, 1992 deadline.2

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

\1\Yolo County, the portion of Solano County in the Sacramento

Metropolitan Area, and the portion of Solano County in the San

Francisco-Bay Area retained their designation and were classified by

operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and 181(a) upon the

date of enactment of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

\2\California did not make the required SIP submittals by

November 15, 1992. On January 15, 1993, the EPA made a finding of

failure to make a submittal pursuant to section 179(a)(1), which

started an 18-month sanction clock. The rule being acted on in the

NPRM was submitted in response to the EPA finding of failure to

submit.

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

The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules to EPA

for incorporation into its SIP on May 24, 1994, including the rule

being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's proposed

action for Rule 2.30, Polyester Resin Operations. The Yolo-Solano

County APCD adopted Rule 2.30 on August 25, 1993. This submitted rule

was found to be complete on July 14, 1994 pursuant to EPA's

completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix

V3 and is being proposed for limited approval and limited

disapproval.

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

\3\EPA adopted completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55 FR

5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the

criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

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

Yolo-Solano County APCD's Rule 2.30 is a new rule which controls

the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from polyester resin

operations. VOCs contribute to the production of ground-level ozone and

smog. Yolo-Solano County APCD's Rule 2.30 was adopted as part of the

district's effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone and to fulfill the requirements of section

182(b)(2)(C) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and

proposed action for Yolo Solano County APCD Rule 2.30.

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.4 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. This

requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.

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

\4\Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of

those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide

policy that concern 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

Notice'' (Blue Book) (Notice of availability was published in the

Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control

technique guidelines (CTGs).

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

For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing

RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)

documents which specify the minimum requirements that a rule must

contain in order to be approved into the SIP. 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 Agency

policy, for requiring States to ``catch-up'' their RACT rules. See

section 182(b)(2). For some categories, such as polyester resin

operations, EPA did not publish a CTG. In such cases, the district may

determine what controls are required to satisfy the RACT requirement by

reviewing the operations of facilities subject to the regulation and

evaluating regulations for similar sources in other areas. Further

interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, referred to

in footnote 4. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth

to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or

maintain the SIP.

Yolo-Solano County APCD Rule 2.30, Polyester Resin Operations, is a

new rule which was adopted to control VOC emissions from polyester

resin operations during evaporation of monomer when resins are applied

and cured and from the use of clean-up solvents. Rule 2.30 requires the

following:

The use of low monomer resins, vapor suppressed resins, or

the use of closed-mold systems. As an alternative, a facility may elect

to use add-on control devices.

Recordkeeping for product use and add-on control

equipment.

The use of test methods to determine compliance with the

rule.

EPA has evaluated Yolo-Solano County APCD's submitted Rule 2.30 for

consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found

that for the most part, the rule is consistent with the CAA and will

strengthen the SIP.

Although Yolo-Solano County APCD's Rule 2.30 will strengthen the

SIP, this rule still contains a deficiency which was required to be

corrected pursuant to the section 182(b)(2)(C) requirement of part D of

the CAA. Rule 2.30 requires low monomer resins but does not reference a

test method to determine the monomer content of resin material. EPA

recommends the use of South Coast Air Quality Management District Test

Method 312 as an appropriate test method to correct this deficiency.

(See the Technical Support Document dated August 29, 1994 for a

detailed evaluation.) Because of this deficiency, the rule is not

approvable pursuant to the section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA because it

is not consistent with the interpretation of section 172 of the 1977

CAA as found in the Blue Book and may lead to rule enforceability

problems.

Because of the above deficiency, EPA cannot grant full approval of

this rule under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the

submitted rule is not composed of separable parts which meet all the

applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted rule under section 110(k)(3) in light of

EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations

necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval

is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited

disapproval. In order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited

approval of Yolo-Solano County APCD Rule submitted Rule 2.30 under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of

this rule because it contains a deficiency that has not been corrected

as required by section 182(b)(2)(C) of the CAA, and, as such, the rule

does not fully meet the requirements of part D of the Act. Under

section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under

section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the

submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by

the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in

section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18

months of such disapproval. EPA's order of sanctions rule, promulgated

August 4, 1994, sets forth the two available sanctions under section

179(b) and the timing and order in which they will be imposed. See 59

FR 39832. Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the Federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). It should

be noted that the rule covered by this NPRM has been adopted by the

Yolo-Solano County APCD and is currently in effect in the district.

EPA's limited disapproval action will not prevent the Solano County

APCD or EPA from enforcing this rule.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 600 et seq.,

EPA must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact

of any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small

entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises and

government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than

50,000.

Limited approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, part

D of the CAA do not create any new requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state

action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

EPA's limited disapproval of the State request under sections 110

and 301 and subchapter I, part D of the CAA does not affect any

existing requirements applicable to small entities. Federal disapproval

of the state submittal does not affect its state enforceability.

Moreover, EPA's limited disapproval of the submittal does not impose

any new Federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this

limited disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because it does not remove

existing requirements nor does it impose any new Federal requirements.

The OMB has exempted this regulatory action from review under

Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: November 30, 1994.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-30212 Filed 12-7-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P