Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD) and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OAQPS No. CA-102-3-6756a; FRL-5135-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision, Placer County Air Pollution Control

District (PCAPCD) and San Diego County Air Pollution Control District

(SDCAPCD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern recordkeeping requirements for

sources emitting volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and which concern

the control of VOC emissions from metal can and coil coating

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 (NPRM) 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 February 9, 1995.

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

Section [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 rules 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 rules 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

Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies of the rules 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 rules 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.

Placer County Air Pollution Control District, 11464 B Avenue,

Auburn, CA 95603.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake

Drive, San Diego, CA 92123.

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 94105-3901, (415)

744-1187.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being proposed for approval into the California SIP

include: PCAPCD Rule 223, Metal Container Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410,

Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD Rule

67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating

Operations. These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources

Board to EPA on November 30, 1994, December 21, 1994, and October 19,

1994, respectively.

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 Placer

County and San Diego County. 43 FR 8964; 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 52.222

r the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977

(1977 CAA or pre-amended Act), that included Placer

County and San Diego County. 43 FR 8964; 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 52.222. 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). 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. Both Placer County and San Diego County are

classified as serious;\2\ therefore, these areas were subject to the

RACT fix-up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline.

reas

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. Both Placer County and San Diego County are

classified as serious;\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\Placer County and San Diego County retained their

designations 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 State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on October 19, 1994, November 30, 1994, and

December 21, 1994, including the rules being acted on in this document.

This document addresses EPA's proposed action for PCAPCD Rule 223,

Metal Container Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410, Recordkeeping for Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD Rule 67.4, Metal Container,

Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating Operations. PCAPCD adopted Rules

223 and 410 on October 6, 1994 and November 3, 1994, respectively.

SDCAPCD adopted Rule 67.4 on September 27, 1994

ent.

This document addresses EPA's proposed action for PCAPCD Rule 223,

Metal Container Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410, Recordkeeping for Volatile

Organic Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD Rule 67.4, Metal Container,

Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating Operations. PCAPCD adopted Rules

223 and 410 on October 6, 1994 and November 3, 1994, respectively.

SDCAPCD adopted Rule 67.4 on September 27, 1994. These submitted rules

were found to be complete on December 7, 1994, December 23, 1994, and

December 1, 1994, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set

forth in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V\3\ and are being proposed 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).

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

PCAPCD Rule 223 controls VOC emissions from metal container coating

operations. PCAPCD Rule 410 establishes recordkeeping requirements for

sources emitting VOCs. SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 controls VOC emissions from

metal container, metal closure, and metal coil coating operations. VOCs

contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These

rules were 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 proposed action for these rules.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

g operations. VOCs

contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These

rules were 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 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 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). The CTG

applicable to PCAPCD Rule 223 and SDCAPCD Rule 67.4 is entitled,

``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,

Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks'', EPA-450/2-77-008. The guidance

document used to evaluate PCAPCD Rule 410 is entitled, ``Recordkeeping

Guidance Document for Surface Coating Operations and the Graphics Arts

Industry'', EPA-340/1-88-003

ule 67.4 is entitled,

``Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary

Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,

Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks'', EPA-450/2-77-008. The guidance

document used to evaluate PCAPCD Rule 410 is entitled, ``Recordkeeping

Guidance Document for Surface Coating Operations and the Graphics Arts

Industry'', EPA-340/1-88-003. Further interpretations of EPA policy are

found in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote 1. In general, these

guidance documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are

fully enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.

PCAPCD Rule 223 includes the following significant changes from the

current SIP:

Adds definitions which improve rule clarity and

enforceability,

Regulates emissions from coil coating, the interior body

spray of three piece cans, tab press lubricant, and necker lubricants,

Lowers emission limits for the interior body spray of two

piece cans and new drums, pails and lids coatings,

Allows emission control systems to be used by sources

using noncomplying coatings,

Specifies coating application methods,

Prohibits use of coatings which could violate the

provisions of the rule,

Regulates the use of surface preparation and clean-up

solvents,

Adds a compliance schedule to the administrative

requirements,

Requires sources using an emission control device to

submit an Operation and Maintenance Plan and to maintain daily records,

States that compliance with the standards of Section 302

shall be demonstrated by conducting annual source testing of the

emission control equipment and by analyzing coating VOC content,

Includes test methods for determining vapor pressure of an

organic solvent used in a gun washing system and for determining

capture and control efficiency.

PCAPCD Rule 410 includes the following significant changes from the

current SIP:

Removes reference to unspecified test methods

ed by conducting annual source testing of the

emission control equipment and by analyzing coating VOC content,

Includes test methods for determining vapor pressure of an

organic solvent used in a gun washing system and for determining

capture and control efficiency.

PCAPCD Rule 410 includes the following significant changes from the

current SIP:

Removes reference to unspecified test methods. SDCAPCD's

submitted Rule 67.4 includes the following significant changes from the

current SIP:

Redefines ``closure'', ``exempt compound'', and ``volatile

organic compound (VOC)'', and defines ``exterior body

spray'' and ``letterpress coating'',

Specifies VOC limits for letterpress coatings, other coil

coatings, and end sealing compounds applied to pet food and non-food

containers,

Removes portions containing Air Pollution Control Officer

Discretion,

Requires air pollution control systems installed to

include emissions collection systems with an overall capture and

control device efficiency of at least 85 percent by weight,

Adds recordkeeping requirements for solvent usage and

sources using noncomplying coatings,

Allows the measurement of VOC content in letterpress

coatings to be determined using SDCAPCD's Method 24D,

Requires the measurement of VOC content in noncomplying

coatings to be conducted in accordance with EPA Methods 18 and 25 or

25A,

Includes requirements when perfluorocarbon (PFC) compounds

and other exempt compounds are present in the coating, cleaning, or

surface preparation material.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they

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

Therefore, PCAPCD Rule 223, Metal Container Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410,

Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD Rule

67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating

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

onsistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.

Therefore, PCAPCD Rule 223, Metal Container Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410,

Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD Rule

67.4, Metal Container, Metal Closure, and Metal Coil Coating

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. 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.

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)