# + 2

(,1 1/,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 BurnPeriods;" 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 ofthe City ofEl Paso on December 11, 1990. 0i)

Additional material. (A) November 5, 1991, narrative plan addressing the ElPaso moderate PM-10 nonattainment area, including emission Inventory, modeling analyses, and control measures.

. (B) A Memorandum ofUnderstanding between theTACB and the City ofEl Paso defining the actions required and the responsibilities ofeach party pursuant to the revisions to the Texas PM-10 SIP forEl Paso, passed and approved on November 5, 1991.

(C)TACB certification letter dated July 27, 1989, and signed by AllenEli 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 ofEl Paso, and SEDUE will continue a cooperative effort to study thePM-10 air quality in the ElPaso/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 tobetter define the relative contributions ofEl 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 ofrevisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)proposed in the Federal Register on September 2, 1992. The revisions concern rules from the SanJoaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) which is comprised.ofthe following eight air pollution control districts (APCDs): Fresno CountyAPCD, 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 ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the requirements ofthe Clean AirAct,

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 ofthese revisions into the California SPunder provisions ofthe CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SPs fornational primary and secondar ambient air quality standards and plan requirements for nonattainment areas. EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

onFebruary 17, 1994. ADDRESSEES: Copies ofthe rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report foreach rule are available for public inspection
at EPA's Region IXoffice during normal business hours. Copies ofthe 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. SanJoaquin 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 intothe 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; andRule 460.4 was adopted by SJVUA.PCD September 19, 1991. The rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
toEPA on May 30, 1991 

### andJanuary 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 fixtheir reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules forozone in accordance with EPA guidance that interpreted the requirements ofthe pre-amendment Act. A detailed discussion ofthe background for each ofthe above rules and nonattainment areas is provided inthe NPR cited above.

EPA has evaluated the above rules for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA interpretation ofthese 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 ruleprovisions and evaluations has been provided at 57 FR40157 and in technical support documents (TSDs) available at EPA's RegionIX office (TSDs for Rule 461.2 and460.4 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 rule460.4.EPA received comments on rule 461.2 from three sources: (1)The National

- Cottonseed Products Association ("NCPA");(2) theJ.G.Boswell Company ("Boswell"); and (3) the Institute of Shortening andEdible Oils, Inc ("Institute"). All three commented on SJVUAPCD's definition ofvolatile organic compounds ("VOCs")- suggesting that the definition not include vegetable oil emissions. In addition, the NCPA andInstitute also recommmended that SJVUAPCDrule 461.2 specify performance standards or emissions limits rather than specific equipment for RACT controls.

The comments are discussed below.

1.DefinitionofVOC

Summaryof comments:Rule 461.2 defines VOC as "any compound containing at leastone atom ofcarbon except for the following exempt compounds." Vegetable oil isnot listed

asan exempt compound. The comments stated that therule shouldexempt vegetable oil from the definition ofVOC because ofits lowvolatilityand because the EPAhas determined that vegetable 2535

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

-oilshould notbe considered aVOC under EPA test methods.

Responses:(1)Rule 461.2 does not specify RACT for controlling VOC emissions from vegetable oil; rather,the purpose ofthe rule is to establish RACT forcontrolling the VOC emissions from the processing operations which extract vegetable oil. Hexane extraction of vegetable oil is known to cause substantial emissions ofVOCs, and these are the types ofemissions that are controlled by Rule 461.2, not emissions from vegetable oil. The EPA policy_ memorandum dated April 1991 ("The Impact ofDeclaring Soybean Oil Exempt from VOC Regulations onthe Coatings Program") specifically addresses cooking processes which use vegetable oil.Besides, Rule 461.2 would notbe considered defective even ifit adopted

amore stringentdefinition ofVOCthan EPA. (2) SpecificationofControl 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 extractorbe controlled either by use ofa condenser and mineral oil scrubber with a 90%control efficiency, or with "rainemission control device,with a combined capture and control efficiency ofat least 90 percent by weight, confirmed by source testing." EPA interprets this provision ofthe rule as establishing a performance standard rather than asestablishing a specific control technology inthat 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 ofat least 90 percent by weight) does designate a specific control technology, EPA has notplaced regulatory restrictions onState and local agencies with respect tothe range ofacceptable

measures and/or performance standards that mustbe specified ina RACT rule. EPA believes thatthe State should decide the degree offlexibility to provide toregulated industry in selectingacceptable 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 ofsection 110(a) and part D ofthe CAA. This approval action will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. The intended effect ofapproving these rules is to regulate emissions ofVOCs in accordance with the requirements ofthe CAA.

Nothing in this action should be construed aspermitting 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 etseq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany 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 withjurisdiction over populations of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I, part D ofthe 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 ofthe federal-state relationship under the CAA, preparation ofaregulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. UnionElectricCo.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) fromthe requirements ofSection 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a period of 

### twoyears. EPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver for Table 2 and Table 3SIP revisions. OMBhas agreed to continue the waiver until such time

asit 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) ofthe Act, petitions forjudicial review ofthis action must be filed inthe United States Court ofAppeals for the appropriate circuit by March 21, 1994. Filing a petition forreconsideration by the Administrator ofthis final rule does not affect the finality ofthisrule forthe purposes ofjudicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition forjudicial 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 ofSubjects in40 CFRPart52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation byreference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference ofthe State Implementation Plan forthe State of California was approvedby the Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Authority:42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. Dated: December 16, 1993. 

### FeliciaMarcus, RegionalAdministrator.

Part 52, chapter 1, title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--AMENDED

1.The authority citation for part 52 continues toread 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

40CFR Part 52
[MT--1-6134 &MT13-1-6133; FRL-4807-6]

Clean AirActApproval and Promulgation of PM 0 oImplementation 

### Plan forMontana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: In this action, EPA approves the State implementation plan (SIP) submitted by the State ofMontana to achieve attainment ofthe National ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal
to a nominal 10micrometers (PMlo). The SIP was.submitted by Montana to satisfy certain Federal requirements for

an approvable moderate nonattainment

area PM 1 o SIP for Missoula. In this final rule, EPA also approves the Missoula City-County AirPollution 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 onthese rules when the State fulfillsits related commitments. One commitment has been fulfilled (see the This Action section ofthis document for

moreinformation). Ifthe State fails to fulfill the remainder ofits 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 ofthe 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 ofHealth 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 forPM~o and classified as moderate under sections 107(d)(4)(B) and 188(a)of theClean Air Act,upon enactment of the Clean Air ActAmendments of 1990. 1See56 FR 56694 (November6, 1991);40 CFR 81.327 (Missoula and vicinity). The air qualityplanning requirements for moderate PM10 nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1and 4 ofpart D, title I ofthe Act.

EPA has issued a "General Preamble" describing its preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIPsand SIP revisions submitted under title I ofthe Act, including those State submittals containing moderate PM1 0 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 ofthe interpretations oftitle Iadvanced in this final action and the supporting rationale.

Those States containing initial moderate PMt 0 nonattainment areas (i.e., those areas designated nonattainment forPM,0 under section 107(d)(4)(B) ofthe Act) were required to submit, among otherthings, 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 inthe area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, ofreasonably 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 butno 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 airquality planning requirements forareas that donot meet (orthat significantly contribute to ambient airquality Ina nearby areathat does not meet) the PM.0 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (seePublic Law No. 101-549,;104 Stat. 2399). References herein ate to the Clean AirAct, as amended ("the Act"),42 U.S.C. 7401. ataj. 4. Provisions to assure that thecontrol requirements applicable tomajor stationary sources ofPM,o also apply to major stationary sources ofPMio
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 oftheAct.

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 ofnew 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 orEPA, upon

a determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP orto 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 ofthe Missoula, Montana moderate nonattainment area PMo SIP, including parts ofthe 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 oftitle I and its rationale for proposing to approve,the Missoula moderate nonattainruent area PM1 0 SIP, taking into consideration the

. specific factual issues presented.

EPA requested public comments on all aspects ofthe proposal (please reference 58 FR48343). and comments from the State ofMontana 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 ofthe Missoula City-County Air Pollution Control Program, is unchanged from the September 15, 1993 proposed ap'proval action, except fortwo typographical

errors.noted by EPA.First, in thetable describing sources, controls, emission reductions, and effective dates, the effective date for the Louisiana-Pacific permit modification should have been listed asMarch 20, 1992 instead of January 23, 1992. as indicated. Second, under the Enforceability Issues section. the final modifcation datefor Stone 

### 2537