# Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-22154 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Rule - **Published:** September 12, 1995 - **Citation:** 60 FR 47273 ## Text ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [CA 153-1-7165a; FRL-5278-7] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the California State Implementation Plan. The revisions concern a rule from the El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD). This rule controls volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from lumber processing and timber manufacturing operations. This approval action will incorporate the rule into the federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving 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). In addition, the final action on this rule serves as a final determination that the finding of [[Page 47274]] nonsubmittal for this rule has been corrected and that on the effective date of this action, any Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock is stopped. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval of this revision into the California SIP 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: This final rule is effective on November 13, 1995 unless adverse or critical comments are received by October 12, 1995. If the effective date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal Register. ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report for the rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are available for inspection at the following locations: Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814. El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, 330 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Duane F. James, 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) 744-1191. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Applicability The rule being approved into the California SIP is EDCAPCD's Rule 234, ``VOC RACT Rule--Sierra Pacific Industries.'' This rule was submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA on June 16, 1995. 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 Act or pre-amended Act), that included a portion of El Dorado County in the Sacramento Metro Area. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that the above district's portion of the California 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, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 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 stationary sources of VOCs by November 15, 1992 (the RACT ``catch-up'' requirement). At the time of enactment of the CAA amendments, the Sacramento Metro Area was classified as serious; 1 therefore, this area was subject to the RACT catch-up requirement and the November 15, 1992 deadline.2 \1\ The Sacramento Metro Area was reclassified from serious to severe on June 1, 1995. See 60 FR 20237 (April 25, 1995). \2\ California did not make the required SIP submittal by November 15, 1992. On March 29, 1994, 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 this direct final rule was submitted in response to the EPA finding of failure to submit. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for incorporation into its SIP on June 16, 1995, including the rule being acted on in this notice. This notice addresses EPA's direct-final action for EDCAPCD's Rule 234, ``VOC RACT Rule--Sierra Pacific Industries.'' EDCAPCD adopted Rule 234 on April 25, 1995. This submitted rule was found to be complete on July 31, 1995, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V 3 and is being finalized for approval into the SIP. \3\ 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). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 234 controls VOC emissions from a waste-fired boiler (Boiler #3) at Sierra Pacific Industries in Camino, California. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. This rule was adopted as part of EDCAPCD's effort to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and in response to section 182(b)(2)(C). A similar rule was promulgated by EPA on February 14, 1995, as part of an ozone attainment Federal Implementation Plan (FIP).4 The following is EPA's evaluation and final action for Rule 234. \4\ The ozone attainment FIP was a court ordered requirement, which applied to the Sacramento, Ventura, and South Coast ozone nonattainment areas in California, and was not a result of the March 29, 1994, findings letter. The final FIP rule was signed on February 14, 1995, but was not published in the Federal Register. The FIP was rescinded by Congressional action on April 10, 1995. Pub. L. 104-6, Defense Supplemental Appropriation, H.R. 889. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA Evaluation and 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.5 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. \5\ 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 techniques guideline (CTGs). 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 ``catch-up'' their RACT rules. See section 182(b)(2). For some categories, such as lumber processing and timber manufacturing, EPA did not publish a CTG. In such cases, the state and local agencies may determine what controls are required by reviewing the operation of facilities subject to the regulation and evaluating regulations for similar sources in other areas. Therefore, the EDCAPCD must determine the VOC control measures that are reasonable and available for Sierra Pacific based on its operations. Further interpretations of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote 5. In general, these guidance documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP. EDCAPCD's Rule 234, ``VOC RACT Rule--Sierra Pacific Industries,'' limits the emissions of volatile organic [[Page 47275]] compounds (VOCs) to 150 parts per million volume (ppmv) from a waste- fired boiler (Boiler #3) at Sierra Pacific. This standard is maintained through any one or more of the following: (1) use of fuel with a maximum moisture content of 50%, (2) operation of the boiler at optimal combustion conditions, (3) proper operation and maintenance of pollution control equipment, and/or (4) periodic inspection, maintenance, and repairs on the boiler and other equipment. Records must be maintained of system operating parameters, including temperatures, pressures, fuel flow rate, steam production rate, repair, fuel moisture, and all VOC control measures. All records must be maintained for five years. Compliance with the emission standard is demonstrated using EPA Methods 25 or 25A. The APCO has to be notified within 48 hours if the emission standard is exceeded. Final compliance with Rule 234 is required by February 1, 1996. A more detailed discussion of the source controlled, the controls required, and the justification for why these controls represent RACT can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for Rule 234, dated May 25, 1995. EPA has evaluated the submitted rule and has determined that it is consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, EDCAPCD's Rule 234, ``VOC RACT Rule--Sierra Pacific Industries,'' is being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and Part D. Therefore, if this direct final action is not withdrawn, on November 13, 1995, any FIP clock associated with the finding of failure to submit is stopped. 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. EPA is publishing this notice without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision should adverse or critical comments be filed. This action will be effective November 13, 1995, unless, October 12, 1995, adverse or critical comments are received. If the EPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this action serving as a proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action will be effective November 13, 1995. 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 population of less than 50,000. SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301(a) 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). Unfunded Mandates Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector or to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate. Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under Part D of the Clean Air Act. These rules may bind State, local, and tribal governments to perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain duties. The rule being approved by this action will impose no new requirements because the affected source is already subject to this regulation under State law. Therefore, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments or to the private sector result from this action. EPA has also determined that this final action does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate or to the private sector. This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 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. Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982. Dated: August 10, 1995. Felicia Marcus, Regional Administrator. Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 52--[AMENDED] 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Subpart F--California 2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(222)(i)(B) to read as follows: Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * * (c) * * * (222) * * * (i) * * * (B) El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District. [[Page 47276]] (1) Rule 234, adopted on April 25, 1995. * * * * * [FR Doc. 95-22154 Filed 9-11-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-W --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A95-22154. Public record. Not legal advice.