+(,121/,1(

Citation: 59 Fed. Reg. 2535 1994 

Content downloaded/printed from 

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)

Tue Feb 9 13:59:25 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

"Definitions;" Section 9.38.020, "Nom

Burn Periods;" Section 9.38.030,

"Notice Required;" Section 9.38.040,

"Exemptions;" Section 9.38:050,

"Rebuttable Presumption;" and Section

9.38.060, "Violation Penalty." as

adopted by the City Council of the City

of El Paso on December 11, 1990.

0i) Additional material.

(A) November 5, 1991, narrative plan

addressing the El Paso moderate PM-10

nonattainment area, including emission

Inventory, modeling analyses, and

control measures. . (B) A Memorandum of Understanding

between the TACB and the City of El

Paso defining the actions required and

the responsibilities of each party

pursuant to the revisions to the Texas

PM-10 SIP for El Paso, passed and

approved on November 5, 1991.

(C) TACB certification letter dated

July 27, 1989, and signed by Allen Eli

Bell, Executive Director, TACB.

(D) TACB certification letter dated

October 28, 1991, and signed by Steve

Spaw, Executive Director, TACB.

(E) El Paso PM-10 SIP narrative from

pages 91-92 that reads as follows: ..

. provided that adequate information

becomes available, a contingency plan

will be developed in conjunction with

future El Paso PM-10 SIP revisions. It

is anticipated that EPA, TACB. the City

of El Paso, and SEDUE will continue a

cooperative effort to study the PM-10

air quality in the El Paso/Juarez air

basin. Based on the availability of

enhanced emissions and monitoring

data, as well as more sophisticated

modeling techniques (e.g., Urban

Airshed Model), future studies will

attempt to better define the relative

contributions of El Paso and Juarez to

the PM-10 problem in the basin. At that

time, a contingency plan can more

* appropriately be developed in a

cooperative effort with Mexico."

[FR Doc. 94-1062 Filed 1-14-94; 8:45 am]

BILUNG CODE o--

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-14-5-6756; FRL-4822-3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval

of revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on September 2,

1992. The revisions concern rules from

the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

which is comprised.of the following

eight air pollution control districts

(APCDs): Fresno County APCD, Kern

County APCD, Kings County APCD,

Madera County APCD, Merced County

APCD, San Joaquin County APCD,

Stanislaus County APCD, and Tulare

County APCD. 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 VOC

emissions from vegetable oil processing

and from can and coil coating

operations. Thus, EPA is finalizing the

approval of these revisions into the

California SP under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SPs for national primary

and secondar ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on February 17, 1994.

ADDRESSEES: 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 II (A-5-3), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street. San Francisco, CA

94105.

Jerry Kurtzweg ANR-443, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 "M" Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board. Stationary

Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section,

2020 "L" Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 1745 West Shaw, Suite

104, Fresno, CA 93711.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Chris Stamos, Rulemaking Section II

(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:

Background

On September 2, 1992, at 57 FR 40157,

EPA proposed to approve the following

rules into the California SIP: SJVUAPCD

Rule 461.2, Vegetable Oil Processing

Operations, and SJVUAPCD Rule 460.4,

Can and Coil Coating Operations. Rule

461.2 was adopted by SJVUAPCD on

April 11, 1991; and Rule 460.4 was

adopted by SJVUA.PCD September 19,

1991. The rules were submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

to EPA on May 30, 1991 and January 28.

1992 respectively. The rules were

submitted in response to EPA's 1988

SIP-Call and the CAA section

182(a)(2)(A) requirement that

nonattainment areas fix their reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

rules for ozone in accordance with EPA

guidance that interpreted the

requirements of the pre-amendment Act.

A detailed discussion of the background

for each of the above rules and

nonattainment areas is provided in the

NPR cited above.

EPA has evaluated the above rules for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA

interpretation of these requirements as

expressed in the various EPA policy

guidance documents referenced in the

NPR cited above. EPA has found that

the rules meet the applicable EPA

requirements. A detailed discussion of

the rule provisions and evaluations has

been provided at 57 FR 40157 and in

technical support documents (TSDs)

available at EPA's Region IX office

(TSDs for Rule 461.2 and 460.4 dated

April 30, 1992 and March 12, 1992

respectively).

Response to Comments

A 30-day public comment period was

provided at 57 FR 40157. EPA received

no comments on rule 460.4. EPA

received comments on rule 461.2 from

three sources: (1) The National

-Cottonseed Products Association

("NCPA"); (2) the J.G. Boswell Company

("Boswell"); and (3) the Institute of

Shortening and Edible Oils, Inc

("Institute"). All three commented on

SJVUAPCD's definition of volatile

organic compounds ("VOCs")-

suggesting that the definition not

include vegetable oil emissions. In

addition, the NCPA and Institute also

recommmended that SJVUAPCD rule

461.2 specify performance standards or

emissions limits rather than specific

equipment for RACT controls.

The comments are discussed below.

1. Definition of VOC

Summary of comments: Rule 461.2

defines VOC as "any compound

containing at least one atom of carbon

except for the following exempt

compounds." Vegetable oil is not listed

as an exempt compound. The comments

stated that the rule should exempt

vegetable oil from the definition of VOC

because of its low volatility and because

the EPA has determined that vegetable

2535
2536 Federal Register / Vol. 59, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

-oil should not be considered a VOC

under EPA test methods.

Responses: (1) Rule 461.2 does not

specify RACT for controlling VOC

emissions from vegetable oil; rather, the

purpose of the rule is to establish RACT

for controlling the VOC emissions from

the processing operations which extract

vegetable oil. Hexane extraction of

vegetable oil is known to cause

substantial emissions of VOCs, and

these are the types of emissions that are

controlled by Rule 461.2, not emissions

from vegetable oil. The EPA policy_

memorandum dated April 1991 ("The

Impact of Declaring Soybean Oil Exempt

from VOC Regulations on the Coatings

Program") specifically addresses

cooking processes which use vegetable

oil. Besides, Rule 461.2 would not be

considered defective even if it adopted

a more stringent definition of VOC than

EPA.

(2) Specification of Control

Equipment: The NCPA and Institute

commented that Rule 461.2 was

defective because the rule specifies

control technology rather than a

performance standard-the NCPA and

the Institute argue that this approach

will reduce flexibility and discourage

innovation in identifying control

equipment.

Response: Rule 461.2 provides that

emissions from the desolventizer-toaster

or extractor be controlled either by use

of a condenser and mineral oil scrubber

with a 90% control efficiency, or with

"rain emission control device,with a

combined capture and control efficiency

of at least 90 percent by weight,

confirmed by source testing." EPA

interprets this provision of the rule as

establishing a performance standard

rather than as establishing a specific

control technology in that alternatives to

the condenser and the scrubber are

allowed as long as capture and control

efficiency performance standards are

met.

Although the second requirement of

Rule 461.2 (which states that emissions

from the desolventizer-toaster conveyor,

cooler or tumbler, be controlled with a

mineral oil scrubber that has a

combined capture and control efficiency

of at least 90 percent by weight) does

designate a specific control technology,

EPA has not placed regulatory

restrictions on State and local agencies

with respect to the range of acceptable

measures and/or performance standards

that must be specified in a RACT rule.

EPA believes that the State should

decide the degree of flexibility to

provide to regulated industry in

selecting acceptable control measures

and/or performance standards.

EPA Action

EPA is finalizing action to approve

the above rules for inclusion into the

California SIP. EPA'is approving the

submittal under section 110(k)(3) as

meeting the requirements of section

110(a) and part D of the CAA. This

approval action will incorporate these

rules into the federally approved SIP.

The intended effect of approving these

rules is to regulate emissions of VOCs in

accordance with the requirements of the

CAA.

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. 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).

This action has been classified as a

Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures

published in tl Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On

January 6, 1989, the Office of

Management and Budget waived Table

2 and Table 3 SIP revisions (54 FR 2222)

from the requirements of Section 3 of

Executive Order 12291 for a period of

two years. EPA has submitted a request

for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and

Table 3 SIP revisions. OMB has agreed

to continue the waiver until such time

as it rules on EPA's request. This

request continues in effect under

Executive Order 12866 which

superseded Executive Order 12291 on

September 30. 1993.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by March 21, 1994. 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, Ozone, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

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.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: December 16, 1993.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter 1, 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) (185)(i)(C)(5), and

(187)(i)(A)(4) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(185) * * * (i) * * *

(C) * * *

(5) New Rule 461.2, adopted on April

11, 1991.

(187) * * *

(i)* * * (A) * **
Federal Register / VoL 59, No. 11 / Tuesday, January 18, 1994 / Rules and Regulations

(4) New Rule 460.4, adopted on

September 19, 1991.

IFR Doc. 94-1059 Filed 1-14-94-,%:45 am]

MLING CODE 6560-80-P

40 CFR Part 52

[MT--1-6134 & MT13-1-6133; FRL-4807-6]

Clean Air Act Approval and

Promulgation of PM 0

o Implementation

Plan for Montana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA approves

the State implementation plan (SIP)

submitted by the State of Montana to

achieve attainment of the National

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)

for particulate matter with an

aerodynamic diameter less than or equal

to a nominal 10 micrometers (PMlo).

The SIP was.submitted by Montana to

satisfy certain Federal requirements for

an approvable moderate nonattainment

area PM1 o SIP for Missoula. In this final

rule, EPA also approves the Missoula

City-County Air Pollution Control

Program. except several rules regarding

emergency procedures, permitting, open

burning, wood-waste burners, new

source performance standards,

hazardous air pollutant standards, and

variances. EPA will propose separate

action on these rules when the State

fulfills its related commitments. One

commitment has been fulfilled (see the

This Action section of this document for

more information). If the State fails to

fulfill the remainder of its

commitments, EPA will take

appropriate action. Further, EPA is

declining to take action on Missoula's

odor provisions.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule will become

effective on February 17, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's

submittal and other information are

available for inspectionduring normal

business hours at the following

locations: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region VIII. Air Programs

Branch. 999 18th Street. Suite 500.

Denver, Colorado 80202-2405; Montana

Department of Health and

Environmental Sciences, Air Quality

Bureau. Cogswell Building, Helena,

Montana 59620-0901; and Mr. Jerry

Kurtzweg, ANR-443. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street. SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Amy Platt, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region VIII, (303) 293-1769.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Missoula, Montana area was

designated nonattainment for PM~o and

classified as moderate under sections

107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a) of the Clean Air

Act, upon enactment of the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990. 1 See 56 FR

56694 (November 6, 1991); 40 CFR

81.327 (Missoula and vicinity). The air

quality planning requirements for

moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are

set out in subparts 1 and 4 of part D,

title I of the Act.

EPA has issued a "General Preamble"

describing its preliminary views on how

EPA intends to review SIPs and SIP

revisions submitted under title I of the

Act, including those State submittals

containing moderate PM10

nonattainment area SIP requirements

(see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992)). Because EPA is describing its

interpretations here only in broad terms,

the reader should refer to the General

Preamble for a more detailed discussion

of the interpretations of title I advanced

in this final action and the supporting

rationale.

Those States containing initial

moderate PMt0 nonattainment areas

(i.e., those areas designated

nonattainment for PM,0 under section

107(d)(4)(B) of the Act) were required to

submit, among other things, the

following provisions by November 15,

1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably

available control measures (RACM)

(including such reductions in emissions

from existing sources in the area as may

be obtained through the adoption, at a

minimum, of reasonably available

control technology (RACT]) shall be

implemented no later than December

10. 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including

air quality modelling) that the plan will

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable but no later than

December 31, 1994, or a demonstration

that attainment by that date is

impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are

to be achieved every 3 years and which

demonstrate reasonable further progress

(RFP) toward attainment by December

31.1994; and

'The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act

made significant changes to the air quality planning

requirements for areas that do not meet (or that

significantly contribute to ambient air quality In a nearby area that does not meet) the PM.0 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (see Public Law No.

101-549,;104 Stat. 2399). References herein ate to

the Clean Air Act, as amended ("the Act"), 42

U.S.C. 7401. at aj.

4. Provisions to assure that the control

requirements applicable to major stationary sources of PM,o also apply to

major stationary sources of PMio

precursors except where the

Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly

to PMo levels which exceed the

NAAQS inthe area. See sections 172{c).

188, and 189 of the Act.

Some provisions are due at a later

date. States with initial moderate, PMto

nonattainment areas were required to

submit a permit program for the

construction and operation of new and

modified major stationary sources of

PMo by June 30, 1992 (see section

189(a)). Such States also must submit

contingency measures by November 15,

1993 that become effective without

further action by the State or EPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area

has failed to achieve RFP or to attain the

PMo NAAQS by the applicable

statutory deadline. See section 172(c)(9)

and 57 FR 13543-13544.

On September 15, 1993, EPA

announced its proposed approval of the

Missoula, Montana moderate

nonattainment area PMo SIP, including

parts of the Missoula City-County Air

Pollution Control Program. as meeting

those moderate nonattainment area

PMo SIP requirements due on

November 15. 1991 (58 FR 48339-

48343). In that proposed rulemaking

action and related Technical Support

Document (TSD), EPA described in

detail its interpretations of title I and its

rationale for proposing to approve, the

Missoula moderate nonattainruent area

PM10 SIP, taking into consideration the .

specific factual issues presented.

EPA requested public comments on

all aspects of the proposal (please

reference 58 FR 48343). and comments

from the State of Montana and Stone

Container Corporation were received

during the comment period, which

ended on October 15, 1993. (For further

discussion of these public comments,

please see below and the Addendum to

the TSD for EPA's proposed rulemaking

action on this SP.) This final action on

the Missoula moderate nonattainment

area PM 0 SIP, and portions of the

Missoula City-County Air Pollution

Control Program, is unchanged from the

September 15, 1993 proposed ap'proval

action, except for two typographical

errors. noted by EPA. First, in the table

describing sources, controls, emission

reductions, and effective dates, the

effective date for the Louisiana-Pacific

permit modification should have been

listed as March 20, 1992 instead of

January 23, 1992. as indicated. Second,

under the Enforceability Issues section.

the final modifcation date for Stone

2537