![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District
Related Material
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: August 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 48652-48655]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09au00-24]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 224-0253; FRL-6848-5]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Ventura
County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of
a revision to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District's
(VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP).
This revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
surface cleaning and degreasing. We are proposing action on a local
rule that regulates this emission source under the Clean Air Act as
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We are taking comments on this
proposal and plan to follow with a final action.
DATES: Any comments must arrive by September 8, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions and EPA's
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions
at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square
Dr., 2nd Fl., Ventura, CA 93003-5417.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rule did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of this rule?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
C. What are the rule deficiencies?
D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule.
E. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background Information
A. Why was this rule submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements
I. The State's Submittal
A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the date
that it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VCAPCD............................ 74.6 Surface Cleaning and 11/10/98.......... 02/16/99
Degreasing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 23, 1999, this rule submittal was found to meet the
completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met
before formal EPA review.
B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?
We approved a version of Rule 74.6 into the SIP on December 13,
1994. The VCAPCD adopted a revision to the SIP-approved version on July
9, 1996 and CARB submitted it to us on October 18, 1996. While we can
act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed
materials provided with the previous submittal.
[[Page 48653]]
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?
Rule 74.6 limits surface cleaning and degreasing activities
performed with solvents containing VOCs. The TSD has more information
about this rule.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The
VCAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
Rule 74.6 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific
enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
2. ``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 published in the
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
3. The Control Technique Guideline (CTG) entitled, Control of
Volatile Organic Emissions from Solvent Metal Cleaning (November 1977;
EPA-450/2-77-022),
4. The CARB document entitled, Determination of Reasonably
Available Control Technology and Best Available Control Technology for
Organic Solvent Cleaning and Degreasing Operations (July 18, 1991)
B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
This rule improves the SIP by establishing more stringent emission
limits and specifying appropriate cleaning devices and methods. This
rule is largely consistent with the relevant policy and guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule provisions
which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized below and
discussed further in the TSD.
C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?
These provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act
and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.
1. Rule 74.6 contains two director's discretion clauses. Under
Section C, a person is allowed to petition the Board for a variance
from specific provisions of the rule. Under Section C2a the APCO is
given authority to approve alternative cleaning devices. These two
sections of Rule 74.6 are unapprovable because they allow the APCO to
change SIP requirements.
2. Section C1f contains a reference to Rule 74.32, Electronic
Manufacturing Operations. Rule 74.32 has never been submitted for
approval into the SIP. The reference creates confusion over the rule's
applicability.
3. Section D requires that records of a solvent's intended uses,
content, mix ratio be recorded. Although the types of records that must
be maintained are specified, the frequency of records is not but should
be specified.
D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local
agency modifies the rules.
E. Proposed Action and Public Comment
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is
proposing a limited approval of the submitted rule to improve the SIP.
If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule into the
SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This approval
is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited
disapproval of the rule under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is
finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule
deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed
according to 40 CFR 52.31. A final disapproval would also trigger the
federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c).
Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the VCAPCD, and EPA's
final limited disapproval would not prevent the local agency from
enforcing it.
We will accept comments from the public on the proposed limited
approval and limited disapproval for the next 30 days.
III. Background Information
A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of
the national milestones leading to the submittal of this local agency
VOC rule.
Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978.......................... EPA promulgated a list of ozone
nonattainment areas under the
Clean Air Act as amended in
1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
81.305.
May 26, 1988........................... EPA notified Governors that
parts of their SIPs were
inadequate to attain and
maintain the ozone standard
and requested that they
correct the deficiencies
(EPA's SIP-Call). See section
110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-
amended Act.
November 15, 1990...................... Clean Air Act Amendments of
1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-
549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified
at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
May 15, 1991........................... Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires
that ozone nonattainment areas
correct deficient RACT rules
by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and
Review.
B. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23,
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is determined to be ``economically
significant'' as defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns
an environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe
may have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory
action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental
health or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain
why the planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective
and reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
C. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
[[Page 48654]]
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to provide to the OMB in a separately identified section
of the preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to
provide meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory
policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect their
communities.''
Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the
communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements
of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this proposed
rule.
D. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with
State and local officials early in the process of developing the
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132,
because it merely acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard,
and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
proposed rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
This proposed rule will not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals under
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create
any new requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is
already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
EPA's proposed disapproval of the state request under section 110
and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any
existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing
federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of 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).
F. 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
the 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 proposed action 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 proposed Federal action acts on pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action
because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive
to the use of VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic compound.
[[Page 48655]]
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: July 28, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-20123 Filed 8-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P