# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District, Ventura Country Air Pollution Control District, and Placer County Air Pollution Control District > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-7990 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Uncategorized Document - **Published:** April 4, 1994 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [CA 13-3-6234; FRL-4857-5] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District, Ventura Country Air Pollution Control District, and Placer County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) adopted by the following air pollution control districts: The Yolo-Solano Air Pollution Control District (Yolo-Solano APCD) on November 14, 1990; the Placer County Air Pollution Control District (Placer County APCD) on September 25, 1990; and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (Ventura County APCD) on December 10, 1991. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted these revisions to EPA on the following dates: May 13, 1991, April 5, 1991 and June 19, 1992, respectively. The revisions concern Yolo-Solano APCD's Rule 2.24-Solvent Cleaning Operations, Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.6-Surface Cleaning and Degreasing, and Placer County APCD's Rule 216-Degreasing Operations. These rules control emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from surface cleaning and degreasing operations. The intended effect of proposing approval 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 each of these rules and is proposing to approve them under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan requirements for nonattainment areas. DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 4, 1994. ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report of each 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: Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Yolo-Solano County APCD, 1947 Galileo Ct., suite 103, Davis, CA 95616. Ventura County APCD, 702 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003. Placer County APCD, 11464 B. Avenue, Auburn, CA 95603. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Davis, Rulemaking Section (A- 5-4), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 Telephone: (415) 744-1183. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background On March 3, 1978 EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or pre-amended Act), that included the Yolo-Solano County Area and the Ventura County Area. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On September 12, 1979 EPA promulgated a similar list that included the Placer County Area. 44 FR 53801; 40 CFR 81.305. Because these areas were unable to meet the statutory attainment date of December 31, 1982, California requested under section 172(a)(2), and EPA approved, an extension of the attainment date to December 31, 1987. 40 CFR 52.238. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act, that the above districts' portions of the California SIP were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call)1. On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\The Lake Tahoe portion of Placer County is in attainment for ozone and was not subject to the SIP call. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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.2 EPA's SIP-Call used that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific nonattainment areas. The Yolo County Area is classified 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; the Ventura County Area is classified as severe; and the portion of Placer County in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area is classified as serious;3 therefore these areas were subject to the RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concerns 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). \3\Yolo County, the portion of Solano County in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area, the portion of Solano County in the San Francisco-Bay Area, Ventura County, and the portion of Placer County in the Sacramento Metropolitan Area retained their designations 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 for incorporation into its SIP on April 5 and May 13, 1991 and June 19, 1992, including the rules being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's proposed action for Yolo-Solano APCD's Rule 2.24-Solvent Cleaning Operations, Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.6- Surface Cleaning and Degreasing and Placer County APCD's Rule 216- Degreasing Operations. These submitted rules were found to be complete on the following dates: Rule 2.24, July 10, 1991; Rule 74.6, August 27, 1992; and Rule 216, May 21, 1991. These rules were found to be complete pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V4 and are being proposed for approval into the SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\EPA adopted the 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- These submitted rules control VOC emissions from solvent degreasing operations. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. The rules were adopted as part of each district's efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. The following is EPA's evaluation and proposed action for these rules. 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 2. 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. 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 all of the rules in this document is EPA-450/2-77-022, ``Control of Volatile Organic emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning.'' Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote 2. 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's Rule 2.24, Solvent Cleaning Operations, includes the following significant changes from the current SIP: 1. Revised and expanded the ``definitions'' section. 2. Revised the ``exemptions'' section. 3. Deleted Air Pollution Control Officer discretion for selection of test methods. 4. Added recordkeeping requirements and test methods. 5. With regard to cold solvent cleaning, changed all reference points from vapor pressure to initial boiling point of the solvent which is more easily measured (as determined by ASTM D-1078-78). Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.6, Surface Cleaning and Degreasing, includes the following significant changes from the current SIP: 1. Added an applicability section. 2. Expanded the ``Definitions'' section. 3. Added recordkeeping requirements, i.e. records for solvent makeup, solvent disposal, and total solvent used by type. 4. Added specific test methods approved by the EPA. 5. Expanded operating requirements for the different degreasing operations through the incorporation of Ventura County APCD Rules 74.6.1, 74.6.2, and 74.6.3. 6. Incorporated the initial boiling point of solvents (as measured by ASTM 1078-78) for determining applicability in place of vapor pressure. 7. Included more stringent vapor control and emission collection provisions for open top vapor degreasers. Placer County APCD's Rule 216, Degreasing Operations includes the following significant changes from the current SIP: 1. Expanded and refined the definitions section. 2. Added recordkeeping and compliance schedule requirements. 3. Added a requirement for immediate repair of leaks or system shutdown. 4. Removed the exemption for small vapor and conveyorized degreasers. 5. Added an exemption for small cold cleaners. 6. Deleted APCO discretion in determining equivalency of equipment or procedures. 7. Replaced vapor pressure with initial boiling point of solvent (as defined by ASTM 1078-78) for determining applicability. EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, Yolo-Solano APCD's Rule 2.24-Solvent Cleaning Operations, Ventura County APCD's Rule 74.6-Surface Cleaning and Degreasing, and Placer County APCD's Rule 216-Degreasing Operations, are being proposed for approval under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D. 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. SIP 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, 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). This action has been classified as a Table 3 action by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225) as revised by an October 4, 1993, memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. A future document will inform the general public of these tables. On January 6, 1989, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for 2 years. The 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: March 24, 1994. David A. Howekamp, Acting Regional Administrator. [FR Doc. 94-7990 Filed 4-1-94; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-F --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A94-7990. Public record. Not legal advice.