53542 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA157–0050a; FRL–5907–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Santa

Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District, California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action to approve Santa Barbara County

Air Pollution Control District’s (Santa

Barbara or District) Rule 370 ‘‘Potential

to Emit—Limitations for Part 70

Sources’’ (prohibitory rule) under Clean

Air Act (CAA) sections 110 and 112(l).

This rule creates federally-enforceable

limits on potential to emit for sources

with actual emissions less than 50

percent of the major source thresholds.

This approval action will incorporate

Rule 370 into the federally-approved

State Implementation Plan (SIP) for

California. The rule was submitted by

the State to satisfy certain Federal

requirements for an approvable SIP.

EPA is finalizing the approval of this

rule 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.

EPA is taking this action without prior

proposal because the Agency views this

action as a non-controversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments.

DATES: This action is effective on

December 15, 1997 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

November 14, 1997. If the effective date

is delayed, a timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: John

Walser, Permits Office (AIR–3), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105. Copies

of the rule and EPA’s Technical Support

Document for the rule are available for

public inspection at the following

locations:

Permits Office (AIR–3), Air Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, 17th Floor, San Francisco, CA

94105

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District, 26 Castilian Drive, B–

23, Goleta, CA 93117.

Copies of the regulations being

incorporated by reference in today’s rule

are available for inspection at the

following location: Air Docket (6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

401 M Street, S.W., Washington, D.C.

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Walser (telephone 415/744–1257),

Permits Office (AIR–3), Air Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On June 15, 1995, the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District

adopted Rule 370: Potential to Emit—

Limitations for Part 70 Sources. The

purpose of the rule is to exempt small

sources from the requirements of the

federal operating permit program (see 60

FR 55460 dated November 1, 1995).

EPA determines which sources are

subject to the federal operating permit

requirements based on their ‘‘potential

to emit.’’ Under Rule 370, Santa Barbara

County sources that would otherwise be

required to obtain a federal permit

would be exempt if their ‘‘actual’’ 12-

month (rolling average) emissions are

less than 50 percent of their ‘‘potential

to emit.’’ Sources below specified

emission levels would also be exempt.

Federal recordkeeping and reporting

requirements will vary for businesses

with different operational levels. On August 10, 1995, the California

Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted

to EPA, on behalf of the District, the

District’s prohibitory rule (Rule 370),

adopted on June 15, 1995. On

September 20, 1995, EPA reviewed this

rule for completeness and found that the

rule conformed to the completeness

criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V.

II. EPA Evaluation and Action

The EPA has evaluated the submitted

rule and has determined that it is

consistent with 40 CFR part 70 and with

section 112(l) of the Act. The following

is a brief analysis of the key regulatory

revisions being acted on in today’s

notice. (Please refer to the Technical

Support Document for a complete

analysis of the submission.)

A. Analysis of Submission

Rule 370 ‘‘Potential to Emit—Limitation

for Part 70 Sources’’

On August 10, 1995, CARB submitted

for approval into Santa Barbara’s

portion of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP), Rule 370

‘‘Potential to Emit—Limitations for Part

70 Sources.’’ This Rule creates a

streamlined process for limiting the

potential to emit of sources that emit

less than 50 percent of major source

levels but whose potential to emit is

above those levels. Sources complying

with this Rule will have federallyenforceable limits on their potential to

emit and will avoid being subject to

Title V.

The basic requirement for approving

into the SIP rules to limit potential to

emit is that the limits in the rule are

practically enforceable. For a discussion

of general principle of practical

enforceability, see Memorandum from

John Seitz to Regional Air Directors,

‘‘Options for Limiting the Potential to

Emit (PTE) of a Stationary source Under

section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air

Act (Act),’’ January 25, 1995, found in

the docket for this rulemaking. Rule 370

meets the requirements for practical

enforceability for limiting potential to

emit through general prohibitory rules

in SIPs. Please refer to the TSD for

further analysis of the Rule.

CARB also submitted Rule 370 for

approval under section 112(l) of the Act.

The request for approval under section

112 (l) is necessary because the

proposed SIP approval discussed above

only provides a mechanism for

controlling criteria pollutants. EPA has

determined that the practical

enforceability criterion for SIPs is also

appropriate for evaluating and

approving Rule 370 under section

112(l). In addition, Rule 370 must meet

the statutory criteria under section

112(l)(5). For a discussion of EPA’s

authority to approve rules under section

112(l), see 59 FR 60944 (November 29,

1994).

EPA proposes approval of Rule 370

under section 112(l) because the Rule

meets all of the approval criteria

specified in section 112(l)(5) of the Act.

EPA believes Rule 370 contains

adequate authority to assure compliance

with section 112 because it does not

waive any section 112 requirements

applicable to non-major sources.

Regarding adequate resources, Rule 370

is a supporting element of the district’s

title V program which has demonstrated

adequate funding. Furthermore, EPA

believes that Rule 370 provides for an

expeditious schedule for assuring

compliance because it provides a

streamlined approval that allows

sources to establish limits on potential

to emit and avoid being subject to a

federal Clean Air Act requirement

applicable on a particular date. Finally,

Rule 370 is consistent with the

objectives of the section 112 program
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 53543

because its purpose is to enable sources

to obtain federally enforceable limits on

potential to emit to avoid major source

classification under section 112. The

EPA believes this purpose is consistent

with the overall intent of section 112.

Rule 370 is modeled on the California

model prohibitory rule developed by the

California Association of Air Pollution

Control Officers, CARB and EPA. In its

agreement on the model rule, EPA

expressed certain understandings and

caveats. See letter from Lydia Wegman,

Deputy Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, U.S. EPA to

Peter Venturini, Chief, Stationary

Source Division, CARB, January 11,

1995. A copy of this letter is in the

docket for this rulemaking.

Part 70 Requirements

The definition of ‘‘potential to emit’’

in Santa Barbara’s Rule 370 is consistent

with the definition of ‘‘potential to

emit’’ as defined in 40 CFR 70.2

‘‘Definitions—Potential to Emit.’’ The

requirements of Rule 370 do not conflict

or overlap with those of Santa Barbara’s

interim-approved Part 70 operating

permit program.

B. Final Action and Implications

The EPA is publishing this notice

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, EPA is also proposing

approval of Santa Barbara’s rule revision

should adverse or critical comments be

filed. The final action will be effective

December 15, 1997, unless, within 30

days of its publication, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If EPA receives such comments, the

final action would be withdrawn before

the effective date by publishing a

subsequent notice. This action would

then serve as a proposed rule only. All

public comments received after this

action would then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective December 15,

1997.

Rule 370 ‘‘Potential to Emit—

Limitations for Part 70 Sources’’

EPA is promulgating approval of Rule

370 submitted to EPA by CARB on

August 10, 1995.

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.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of Santa Barbara’s submittal

and other information relied upon for

the direct final actions are contained in

docket number CA–SB–97–001

maintained at the EPA Regional Office.

The docket is an organized and

complete file of all the information

submitted to, or otherwise considered

by, EPA in the development of this

direct final rulemaking. The docket is

available for public inspection at the

location listed under the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. 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 population of less

than 50,000.

The EPA’s actions under section 502

of the Act do not create any new

requirements, but simply address

revisions to Santa Barbara’s existing

operating permits program that was

submitted to satisfy the requirements of

40 CFR part 70. Because these approval

actions do not impose any new

requirements, they do not have a

significant impact on any small entities

affected.

C. 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 costeffective 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 today 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, are anticipated to result from this

action.

D. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this action from review

under Executive Order 12866.

E. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to Publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by October 18, 1997.

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Sulfur oxides,

Volatile organic compounds.
53544 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 199 / Wednesday, October 15, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: September 26, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(224)(i)(E) to read

as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(224) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Amended Rule 370 adopted on

June 15, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–27265 Filed 10–14–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD 040–3017a; FRL–5906–1]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Control of Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions From Yeast

Manufacturing, Screen Printing,

Expandable Polystyrene Operations,

and Bakeries

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the State of Maryland on

July 12, 1995. These revisions establish

reasonable available control technology

(RACT) volatile organic compound

(VOC) emission reduction requirements

for yeast manufacturing, screen printing,

expandable polystyrene operations

(EPOs), and bakeries throughout the

State of Maryland. The intended effect

of this action is to approve these

amendments to the Maryland SIP, in

accordance with the SIP submittal and

revision provisions of the Clean Air Act

(the Act). This action is being taken

under section 110 of the Act.

DATES: This final rule is effective

December 15, 1997, unless by November

14, 1997, adverse or critical comments

are received. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO and

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode

3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107 and the Maryland Department of

the Environment, 2500 Broening

Highway, Baltimore Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Carolyn M. Donahue, (215) 566–2095, at

the EPA Region III office address listed

above, or via e-mail at

donahue.carolyn@epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above Region III address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July

12, 1995, the Maryland Department of

the Environment (MDE) submitted new

regulations to EPA as SIP revisions.

These regulations control VOC

emissions throughout the state. MDE

submitted these SIP revision requests

pursuant to the rate-of-progress (ROP)

and RACT requirements of section 182

and 184 of the Act. Specifically,

Maryland has adopted VOC control

measures for yeast manufacturing,

screen printing, EPOs and bakeries.

Background

Section 182(b)(1) of the Act requires

states with ozone nonattainment areas

classified as moderate or above to

reduce VOC emissions 15% from 1990

baseline levels. States were required to

achieve the 15% VOC emission

reduction by 1996. This ROP

requirement, known as the 15% plan,

was due to EPA as a SIP revision by

November 15, 1993.

In Maryland, 15% plans were

required for the Baltimore severe ozone

nonattainment area, the Maryland

portion of the Philadelphia severe ozone

nonattainment area, and the Maryland

portion of the Washington, DC serious

ozone nonattainment area. Maryland

submitted the required 15% plans to

EPA as SIP revisions on July 12, 1995.

In these 15% plans, Maryland takes

credit for the emission reductions

achieved through the VOC regulations

that Maryland submitted as SIP

revisions on July 12, 1995, including

Maryland’s yeast manufacturing, screen

printing, EPO, and bakery regulations.

Furthermore, the VOC emission

reductions achieved by these

regulations are needed to achieve the

15% reduction in the Baltimore plan.

Section 184(b)(1)(B) of the Act

requires areas in the Ozone Transport

Region (OTR) to implement RACT

regulations for all VOC sources that

have the potential to emit 50 TPY or

more. In addition, section 182(b)(2)

requires states to implement RACT

regulations on all ‘‘major’’ sources of

VOC in moderate or above ozone

nonattainment areas. Major VOC

sources are those with the potential to

emit at least 100 TPY in moderate areas,

50 TPY in serious areas, and 25 TPY in

severe areas. Because Maryland is in the

OTR, the State is required to implement

RACT regulations for all sources with

the potential to emit 50 TPY or more,

throughout the state. Furthermore, in

Maryland’s severe ozone nonattainment

areas, RACT is required for all VOC

sources with the potential to emit 25

TPY or more. States were required to

submit these RACT regulations to EPA

as SIP revisions by November 15, 1992.

Sources were required to comply with

RACT by May 31, 1995.

Maryland submitted a generic VOC

RACT regulation to EPA as a SIP

revision on April 5, 1991. On June 8,

1993, Maryland submitted amendments

to this regulation to EPA as a SIP

revision. The generic RACT regulation

does not contain any specific emission

limitations or requirements for major

sources, but instead allows the

establishment of RACT through the SIP

revision process for individual sources

or source categories. Maryland’s July 12,

1995 SIP revision submittals address the

RACT requirement for the following

four source categories: yeast

manufacturing, screen printing,

expandable polystyrene operations, and

bakeries.

Summary of SIP Revisions

Control of VOC Emissions from Yeast

Manufacturing (COMAR 26.11.19.17)

General Provisions

This new regulation establishes

standards for controlling VOC emissions

from yeast manufacturing. This

regulation establishes definitions for the

following terms: ‘‘fermentation batch,’’

‘‘first generation fermenter,’’ ‘‘stock

fermenter,’’ ‘‘trade fermenter,’’ and

‘‘yeast manufacturing installation.’’ An

owner or operator of a yeast

manufacturing installation at a premises

that has a potential to emit of 25 or more

tons/year from all yeast manufacturing

installations is subject to this regulation.

Compliance with this regulation was