Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California,

[Federal Register: August 21, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 162)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 44792-44794]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr21au98-11]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 126-0082a FRL-6140-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management 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. The revisions concern rules from the following Districts: South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD), Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD), 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 revised rules control VOCs from screen printing and graphic arts operations. 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 rule is effective on October 20, 1998 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by September 21, 1998. If EPA received such comments, then it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region IX office listed below. 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 Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105 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 92123-1095 South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182 Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, 1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103, Davis, CA 95616. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744- 1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Applicability

   The rules being approved into the California SIP include: SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, Screen Printing Operations, YSAQMD Rule 2.29, Graphic Arts Printing Operations, and VCAPCD Rule 74.19.1, Screen Printing Operations. These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on March 3, 1997 (1130.1), November 30, 1994 (2.29), and October 18, 1996 (74.19.1).

2. 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 the South Coast Air Basin, the Sacramento Metro Area, and Ventura County. 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 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.‹SUP›1‹/SUP› EPA's SIP-Call used that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific nonattainment areas. The South Coast Air Basin is classified as extreme, the Sacramento

   [[Page 44793]]

   Metro Area and Ventura County are classified as severe,‹SUP›2‹/SUP› and 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 South Coast Air Basin, the Sacramento Metro Area, and Ventura County 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. On April 25, 1995, EPA published a final Rule granting the State's request to reclassify the Sacramento Metro Area to severe from serious. 60 CFR 20237. This reclassification became effective on June 1, 1995.

   The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules for incorporation into its SIP on March 3, 1997, November 30, 1994, and October 18, 1996, including the rules being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, Screen Printing Operations, YSAQMD Rule 2.29, Graphic Arts Printing Operations, and VCAPCD Rule 74.19.1, Screen Printing Operations. SCAQMD amended Rule 1130.1 on December 13, 1996, YSAQMD adapted Rule 2.29 on May 25, 1994, and VCAPCD adopted Rule 74.19.1 on June 11, 1996. These submitted rules were found to be complete on August 12, 1997 (1130.1), January 30, 1995 (2.29), and December 19, 1996 (74.19.1) pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V ‹SUP›3‹/SUP› and are 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).

   SCAQMD's Rule 1130.1 and VCAPCD's Rule 74.19.1 regulate emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emanating from screen printing operations, and YSAQMD's Rule 2.29 limits emissions of VOCs from graphic arts facilities. VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. These rules were originally adopted as part of the above districts' 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 final action for these rules.

3. 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). The CTG applicable to YSAQMD Rule 2.29 is entitled, Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Existing Stationary Sources--Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-- Rotogravure and Flexography--EPA-450/2-78-033. SCAQMD Rule 1130.1 and VCAPCD Rule 74.19.1 cover source categories for which EPA has not published a CTG. Accordingly, these rules were evaluated for consistency with the general RACT requirement of the Clean Air Act (CAA Section 110 and part D). 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.

   There is currently no version of SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, Screen Printing Operations in the SIP. The submitted rule includes the following provisions:

   ‹bullet› Applicability section including a statement of the rule's purpose;

   ‹bullet› Reference to Rule 102 for the exempt compound listing;

   ‹bullet› Option of using emission control equipment or using reduced VOC content inks and coatings;

   ‹bullet› Test methods for VOC contents of coatings and inks;

   ‹bullet› Test methods for metal contents of inks;

   ‹bullet› Test methods for determining capture and control efficiency of an emission control device;

   ‹bullet› Rule exemptions for firms emitting small quantities of VOCs.

   There is currently no version of YSAQMD's Rule 2.29, Graphic Arts in the SIP. The submitted rule includes the following provisions:

   ‹bullet› Statement of applicability;

   ‹bullet› Exemptions for firms emitting small quantities of VOCs;

   ‹bullet› Operation specific standards limiting the VOC content of inks and coatings;

   ‹bullet› Option of using an emission control system, or reduced VOC content inks and coatings;

   ‹bullet› Test methods for determining the VOC content of inks and coatings;

   ‹bullet› Test methods for determining the capture and control efficiency of an emission control system;

   ‹bullet› Record keeping requirements.

   There is currently no version of VCAPCD's Rule 74.19.1, Screen Printing Operations in the SIP. The submitted rule includes the following provisions:

   ‹bullet› Statement of applicability;

   ‹bullet› Reactive organic compound (ROC) limits for specific end- use products and substrates;

   ‹bullet› Option to use an emission control system in lieu of using low ROC coatings;

   ‹bullet› Cleaning methods and storage conditions of ROC containing materials;

   ‹bullet› Record keeping requirements;

   ‹bullet› Exemption for firms using small quantities of ROC containing material;

   ‹bullet› Test methods for measurement of ROC content of inks, coatings, adhesives, resists, and solvents;

   ‹bullet› Test method to determine the metal content of metallic ink;

   ‹bullet› Test method to measure capture and control efficiency of an emission control system.

   EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, SCAQMD Rule 1130.1, Screen Printing Operations, YSAQMD Rule 2.29, Graphic Arts Printing Operations, and VCAPCD Rule 74.19.1, Screen Printing Operations 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 rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective October

   [[Page 44794]]

   20, 1998 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by September 21, 1998.

   If the EPA received such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on October 20, 1998 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

4. Administrative Requirements

   1. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

      The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

      The final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically significant'' action under E.O. 12866.

   2. Regulatory Flexibility Act

      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 section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act 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, the Administrator certifies 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 flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

   3. Unfunded Mandates

      Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

      EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves pre- existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

   4. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

      The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

   5. Petitions for Judicial Review

      Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filedin the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 20, 1998. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

      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: July 28, 1998. Sally Seymour, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

      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 et seq.

         Subpart F--California

      2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(207)(i)(C)(6),(241)(i)(C) and (244)(i)(D), to read as follows:

         Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

         * * * * *

         (c) * * *

         (207) * * *

         (i) * * *

         (C) * * *

         (6) Rule 2.29, adopted on May 25, 1994. * * * * *

         (241) * * *

         (i) * * *

         (C) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.

         (1) Rule 74.19.1, adopted on June 11, 1996. * * * * *

         (244) * * *

         (i) * * *

         (D) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

         (1) Rule 1130.1, adopted on August 2, 1991 and amended on December 13, 1996. * * * * *

         [FR Doc. 98-22335Filed8-20-98; 8:45 am]

         BILLING CODE 6560-50-P