Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OAQPS CA 57-1-6003; FRL-4824-3]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision; Bay Area Air Quality Management

District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

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

light and medium duty motor vehicle assembly plants, and pumps and

compressor seals at petroleum refineries, chemical plants, bulk plants,

and bulk terminals; and reactive organic compound (ROC) emissions from

facilities that apply coatings to metal parts and products and

polyester resin material operations.

The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited

disapproval of these rules 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 (NPR) will incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. EPA has evaluated these rules and is proposing a limited

approval under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals and general rulemaking authority because these revisions

strengthen the SIP. At the same time, EPA is proposing a limited

disapproval under the CAA provisions cited above because the rules do

not meet the CAA provisions regarding plan submissions and requirements

for nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 3, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Daniel Meer, Rulemaking Section

(A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each

rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office

during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions

are also available for inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Rule Development

Section, 702 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Section

(A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone:

(415) 744-1195.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On March 3, 1978 EPA promulgated a list of ozonenonattainment areas

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

Act), that included the San Francisco Bay Area (SF-Bay Area) and the

Ventura County Area.43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. Because the SF-Bay Area

and the Ventura County Area were 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 52.238, 52.222. The

SF-Bay Area and the Ventura 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 BAAQMD and VCAPCD's portion of the SIP were

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(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably

available control technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a

deadline of May 15, 1991 for states to submit corrections of those

deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment

prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or

above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and

correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as

interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.1 EPA's SIP-Call used that

guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific

nonattainment areas. The SF-Bay Area is classified as moderate and the

Ventura County Area is classified as severe2; therefore, these two

areas are subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991

deadline.

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

\1\ 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).

\2\ BAAQMD and VCAPCD 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).

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

The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules to EPA

for incorporation into its SIP on December 31, 1990, September 14,

1992, November 12, 1992, and May 13, 1993, including the rules being

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

action for BAAQMD Rule 8-13, Light and Medium Duty Motor Vehicle

Assembly Plants; BAAQMD Rule 8-25, Pump and Compressor Seals at

Petroleum Refineries, Chemical Plants, Bulk Plants, and Bulk Terminals

(adopted on March 4, 1992); VCAPCD Rule 74.12, Surface Coating of Metal

Parts and Products (adopted November 17, 1992); and VCAPCD Rule 74.14,

Polyester Resin Material Operations (adopted September 14, 1992). These

submitted rules were found to be complete on February 28, 1991 (BAAQMD

Rule 8-13), November20, 1992 (VCAPCD Rule 74.14), April 28, 1993

(BAAQMD Rule 8-25), and July 19, 1993 (VCAPCD Rule 74.12) pursuant to

EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V3 and are 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).

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

Rule 8-13 controls volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from

operations at light and medium duty motor vehicle assembly plants; Rule

8-25 controls VOC emissions from pumps andcompressors; Rule 74.12

controls reactive organic compound (ROC) emissions from facilities that

apply coatings to metal parts or products; and Rule 74.14 controls VOC

emissions from polyester resin material operations. VOCs contribute to

the production of ground level ozone and smog. BAAQMD Rule 8-13 and

BAAQMD Rule 8-25 were originally adopted as part of the District's

effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

ozone and have been revised in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the

section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. Rules 74.12 and 74.14 are new

rules which have been adopted to meet EPA's SIP-Call and the section

182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and

proposed action for BAAQMD Rule 8-13, BAAQMD Rule 8-25, VCAPCD Rule

74.12, and VCAPCD 74.14.

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's interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA

policy guidance documents listed in footnote 1. 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.

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 ``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See

section 182(a)(2)(A). The CTG applicable to BAAQMD Rule 8-13 is

entitled, ``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing

Stationary Sources (Vol II; Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper,

Fabrics, Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks)'', (EPA-450/2-77-008), May

1977; the CTG applicable to BAAQMD Rule 8-25 is entitled, ``Control of

Volatile Organic Compound Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and

Polymer Manufacturing'' (EPA-450/3-83-006), U.S. EPA, March 1984; and

the CTG applicable to VCAPCD Rule 74.12 is entitled, ``Control of

Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources Coating of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products'', EPA-450/2-78-0-015, June

1978. For some source categories, such as polyester resin material

operations (VCAPCD Rule 74.14), EPA did not publish a CTG. In this

case, the VCAPCD made a determination of what controls were required to

satisfy the RACT requirement by reviewing the operations of facilities

with the affected source category. In that review, the technological

and economic feasibility of the proposed controls were considered.

Additionally, for both CTG and non-CTG rules, the District may rely on

EPA policy documents, such as the Blue Book, to ensure that the adopted

VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.

BAAQMD submitted Rule 8-13, Light and Medium Duty Motor Vehicle

Assembly Plants, includes the following revisions from the current SIP

rule:

Exemptions for miscellaneous coatings and constrained

coating lines were deleted and the applicable coating limits from Rules

8-19 (Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and Products) and 8-

31 (Surface Coating of Plastic Parts and Products) were incorporated

into the rule.

VOC limits were established on a ``solids-applied basis''.

Several new definitions were added to clarify references

made within the rule.

A new compliance schedule was developed.

The recordkeeping section was revised to require

monthlyrecords instead of annual records.

BAAQMD submitted Rule 8-25, Pump and Compressor Seals at Petroleum

Refineries, Chemical Plants, Bulk Plants, and Bulk Terminals, includes

the following revisions from the current SIP rule:

Pump and compressor leak standards are reduced to 1000 ppm

effective January 1993.

Several exemptions were eliminated to broaden the scope of

the rule.

New definitions were added to clarify the rule.

Test method requirements were added.

Visual inspection requirements were revised.

VCAPCD's Rule 74.12, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products,

is a new rule and includes:

Limits for the ROC content of metal surface coatings and

solvents used to clean coating application equipment and metal surfaces

prior to coating.

The use of add-on equipment to control emissions of ROCs

if noncompliant coatings are used.

Requirements for monthly records of complying coatings and

daily records of noncompliant coating applied.

Test methods are included to determine compliance.

VCAPCD's Rule 74.14 is a new rule which controls emissions from

polyester resin materials operations and includes the following

provisions:

Emission requirements based on the monomer content of the

resin material.

Requirement that resin material be applied by specified

transfer efficient methods.

ROC content limits, usage limits and disposal

specifications for cleaning materials.

Add-on equipment may be used to reduce the emissions of

noncompliant resin materials.

Recordkeeping and test method requirements have been

added.

EPA has evaluated BAAQMD's submitted Rules 8-13 and 8-25 and

VCAPCD's submitted Rules 74.12 and 74.14 for consistency with the CAA,

EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the revisions

address and correct many deficiencies previously identified by EPA.

These corrected deficiencies have resulted in clearer, more enforceable

rules. Furthermore, the addition of more stringent requirements in

submitted BAAQMD Rule 8-25 should lead to more emission reductions.

Although BAAQMD Rule 8-13, BAAQMD Rule 8-25, VCAPCD Rule 74.12, and

VCAPCD Rule 74.14 will strengthen the SIP, these rules still contain

deficiencies which were required to be corrected pursuant to the

section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of Part D of the CAA. BAAQMD Rules 8-

13 and 8-25 contain two deficiencies, referencing of test method ST-7

for determination of control efficiency and the lack of recordkeeping

for add-on equipment. (A detailed discussion of the rules can be found

in the Technical Support Document (TSD) dated July 2, 1993 (Rule 8-13)

and May 14, 1993 (Rule 8-25).) VCAPCD Rule 74.12 contains specialty

coatings that exceed the CTG limit of 420 grams per liter and VCAPCD

Rule 74.14 references a test method that has not been approved by EPA.

(A detailed discussion of these rules can be found in TSDs dated June

10, 1993). Because of the deficiencies cited above, the rules are not

approvable pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA because they

are 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 deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval

of these rules under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the

submitted rules are not composed of separable parts which meet all the

applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

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

approval of the submitted rules 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 BAAQMD submitted Rules 8-13 and 8-25 and VCAPCD submitted

Rules 74.12 and 74.14 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

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

these rules because they contain deficiencies that have not been

corrected as required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such,

the rules do 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. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18

month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective

date of EPA's final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final

disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rules covered by this

NPR have been adopted by the BAAQMD and VCAPCD and are currently in

effect in those local areas. EPA's limited disapproval action in this

NPR does not prevent a local agency or EPA from enforcing these rules.

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. 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.

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions

(54 FR 2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order

12291 for a period of two years. EPA has submitted a request for a

permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions. OMB has agreed

to continue the waiver until such time as it rules on EPA's

request.This request continues in effect under Executive Order 12866

which superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

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

Dated: December 22, 1993.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-615 Filed 1-31-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F