Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 071-0005a; FRL-5464-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado County Air Pollution

Control District, Placer County Air Pollution Control District, and

Ventura 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 (SIP). The revisions concern rules

from the following air districts: El Dorado County Air Pollution

Control District (EDCAPCD), Placer County Air Pollution Control

District (PCAPCD), and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

(VCAPCD). This approval action will incorporate these rules into the

federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rules is

to regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in

accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in

1990 (CAA or the Act). The rules control VOC emissions from adhesives

and sealants, architectural coatings, and wood products coatings. Thus,

EPA is finalizing the approval of these revisions 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 action is effective on September 16, 1996 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by August 19, 1996. If the effective

date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal

Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report for

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

during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions

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.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

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

El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, 2850 Fairlane Court,

Placerville, CA 95667.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn,

CA 95603.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,

Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikole Reaksecker, 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) 744-1187.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being approved into the California SIP include: EDCAPCD

Rule 236--Adhesives, EDCAPCD Rule 215--Architectural Coatings, EDCAPCD

Rule 237--Wood Products Coatings, PCAPCD Rule 235--Adhesives, PCAPCD

Rule 218--Architectural Coatings, and VCAPCD Rule 74.20--Adhesives and

Sealants. These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources

Board (CARB) to EPA on October 13, 1995, May 24, 1995, November 30,

1994, and November 18, 1993.

Background

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

areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in l977

(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the Sacramento Metro

(including portions of El Dorado and Placer counties) and Ventura

County areas. 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 EDCAPCD, PCAPCD and VCAPCD 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-

[[Page 37391]]

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(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 Sacramento Metro Area and the Ventura County

Area are classified as severe;2 therefore, these areas were

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\ The Sacramento Metro and the Ventura County Areas retained

their designation of nonattainment and were classified by operation

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

enactment of the CAA. See 55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). The

Sacramento Metro Area was reclassified from serious to severe on

April 25, 1995 [60 FR 20237].

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

The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP. The following table includes the dates that

the districts adopted the rules, the dates that CARB submitted the

rules to EPA, and the dates that the rules were found complete pursuant

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

Appendix V.3

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

\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 Adoption Submittal Completeness

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

EDCAPCD 215 Architectural

Coatings....................... 9/27/94 11/30/94 1/30/95

EDCAPCD 236 Adhesives........... 7/25/95 10/13/95 11/28/95

EDCAPCD 237 Wood Products

Coatings....................... 6/27/95 10/13/95 11/28/95

PCAPCD 218 Architectural

Coatings....................... 2/9/95 5/24/95 7/24/95

PCAPCD 235 Adhesives............ 6/8/95 10/13/95 11/28/95

VCAPCD 74.20 Adhesives and

Sealants....................... 6/8/93 11/18/93 12/23/93

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

This notice addresses EPA's direct-final action for the above-

mentioned rules.

These rules control VOC emissions from adhesives, architectural

coatings, and wood products coatings. VOCs contribute to the production

of ground level ozone and smog. These rules were originally adopted as

part of the districts' effort 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 final action for these rules.

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 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. 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). EDCAPCD Rules

215, 236, and 237, PCAPCD Rules 218 and 235, and VCAPCD Rule 74.20

control emissions from source categories for which EPA has not

finalized CTGs. Accordingly, these rules were evaluated against the

interpretation of EPA policy found in the Blue Book, referred to in

footnote 1, and against other EPA policy including the EPA Region 9/

CARB document entitled: Guidance Document for Correcting VOC Rule

Deficiencies (April 1991). EDCAPCD Rule 237 was also evaluated against

EPA's draft CTG for wood furniture finishing and cleaning operations,

released for comments on September 7, 1995 in the Federal Register, 60

FR 46595. EDCAPCD Rule 215 and PCAPCD Rule 218 were evaluated against

the CARB/CAPCOA Suggested Control Measure for Architectural Coatings

(July 1989). 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 submitted Rule 215--Architectural Coatings--covers the

Lake Tahoe and the Mountain Counties Air Basin portions of the SIP.

Rule 215 includes the following major provisions:

exemptions for coatings manufactured for use outside the

District, coatings supplied in containers with capacities of one liter

or less, and emulsion-type bituminous pavement sealers,

VOC content limits for architectural coatings,

prohibitions of sale and specification, and

storage and labelling requirements.

EDCAPCD's submitted Rule 236--Adhesives--is a new rule for El

Dorado County that includes the following major provisions:

VOC content limits for adhesives, adhesive primers, and

aerosol adhesives,

capture and control efficiency requirements for add-on

exhaust control systems,

application equipment requirements, and

recordkeeping and record retention requirements.

EDCAPCD's submitted Rule 237--Wood Products Coatings--is a new rule

for El Dorado County that includes the following major provisions:

[[Page 37392]]

application equipment requirements,

VOC content limits for wood products coatings and

strippers,

capture and control efficiency requirements for add-on

exhaust control systems,

a prohibition of specification, and

surface preparation, clean-up, labeling and recordkeeping

requirements.

PCAPCD's submitted Rule 218--Architectural Coatings--covers the

Lake Tahoe, the Sacramento Valley, and the Mountain Counties Air Basin

portions of the SIP. Rule 218 is a new rule for the Lake Tahoe and the

Sacramento Valley Air Basins. The rule includes the following major

provisions:

exemptions for coatings manufactured for use outside the

District, coatings supplied in containers with capacities of one liter

or less, and emulsion-type bituminous pavement sealers,

VOC content limits for architectural coatings,

prohibitions of sale and specification, and

labelling and recordkeeping requirements.

PCAPCD's submitted Rule 235--Adhesives--is a new rule covering only

the Sacramento Valley Air Basin portion of Placer County. Rule 235

includes the following major provisions:

exemptions for low specific operations,

VOC content limits for adhesives, primers, sealants,

aerosol adhesives, surface preparation solvents, and clean-up

materials,

capture and control efficiency requirements for add-on

exhaust control systems,

prohibitions of sales and specification, and

recordkeeping and record retention requirements.

VCAPCD's submitted Rule 74.20--Adhesives and Sealants--is a new

rule for Ventura County that includes the following major provisions:

reactive organic compound (ROC) content limits for

adhesives, sealants, primers, adhesive aerosols, surface preparation

materials, and clean-up solvents,

surface preparation, storage, clean-up, and stripping

requirements,

capture and control efficiency requirements for add-on

exhaust control systems,

restricted use of 1,1,1-trichloroethane and methylene

chloride,

prohibitions of sales and specification,

exemptions for specific operations, and

monitoring, recordkeeping and record retention

requirements.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they

are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

Therefore, EDCAPCD Rule 236--Adhesives, EDCAPCD Rule 215--Architectural

Coatings, EDCAPCD Rule 237--Wood Products Coatings, PCAPCD Rule 235--

Adhesives, PCAPCD Rule 218--Architectural Coatings, and VCAPCD Rule

74.20--Adhesives and Sealants, are being approved 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 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 September 16, 1996, unless, within 30 days of its

publication, 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 notice 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 September 16, 1996.

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. Secs. 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 rules being approved by this action will impose no

new requirements because affected sources are already subject to these

regulations 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 direct-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 regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.

[[Page 37393]]

Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(APA) as amended by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness

Act of 1996, EPA submitted a report containing this rule and other

required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in today's Federal Register.

This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by section 804(2) of the

APA as amended.

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: April 18, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of 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 paragraphs

(c)(194)(i)(A)(5), (207)(i)(B)(3), (220)(i)(B)(1), and (225)(i) (B)(4)

and (C)(1) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(194) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(5) Rule 74.20, adopted on June 8, 1993.

* * * * *

(207) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) Rule 215, adopted on September 27, 1994.

* * * * *

(220) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(1) Rule 218, adopted on February 9, 1995.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(4) Rule 235, adopted on June 8, 1995.

* * * * *

(C) * * *

(1) Rules 236 and 237, adopted on July 25, 1995 and June 27, 1995,

respectively.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96-18203 Filed 7-17-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-W