### 37387 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 139 / Thursday, July 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TN–151–7017a; TN–153–7018a; TN–161– 9621a; TN–162–9622a; TN–164–9626a; TN– 168–9628a; TN–169–9629a; FRL–5533–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans Tennessee: Approval of Revisions to the Tennessee SIP Regarding
Construction Permits and Volatile Organic Compounds

AGENCY : Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION : Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: In this document, EPA is acting on revisions to the Tennessee State Implementation Plan (SIP) which were submitted to EPA by Tennessee, through the Tennessee Department of Air Pollution Control (TDAPC), to amend the Tennessee chapters on construction and operating permits and the regulation of volatile organic compounds (VOC). The revisions amending the TDAPC’s construction and operating permits chapter were submitted on January 17, 1995; the revisions amending the TDAPC’s VOC chapter were submitted on February 21, 1995, February 8, 1996, February 23, 1996, April 22, 1996, and April 25,
1996. The revisions to the construction and operating permit incorporate visibility protection requirements into the construction permits portion of the rule. The revisions to the VOC chapter were made to respond to the deficiencies of the VOC chapter as described in 60 FR 10504 published on February 27, 1995, which acted on the Tennessee VOC Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) submittal to meet the 1990 VOC RACT ‘‘Catch Up’’ requirements. In this notice, EPA is making the determination that all conditional approvals necessary for ozone redesignation purposes have been
satisfied. In addition to the above revisions, an amendment was submitted on February 23, 1996, which amended
the emissions statement in the VOC chapter, and two new chapters were submitted in April 1996, to regulate offset lithographic printing sources and wood furniture finishing and cleaning operations.

DATES : This final rule is effective September 16, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are received by August 19, 1996. If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published
in the Federal Register

. ADDRESSES : Written comments on this
action should be addressed to William Denman at the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365. Copies of
documents relative to this action are available for public inspection during normal business hours at the following locations. The interested persons wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the appropriate office at least 24 hours before the visiting day. Reference files TN151–01–7017, TN153–01–7018, TN161–01–9621, TN162–01–9622, TN164–01–9626, TN168–01–9628, and TN169–01–9629. The Region 4 office may have additional background
documents not available at the other
locations.

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 4 Air Programs Branch, 345 Courtland Street, NE, Atlanta, Georgia 30365, William Denman, 404/347–
3555 extension 4208. Tennessee Department of Environment

and Conservation, Division of Air Pollution Control, L & C Annex, 9th Floor, 401 Church Street, Nashville, Tennessee 37243–1531, 615/532–
0554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Denman 404/347–3555
extension 4208.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION : On January 17, 1995, the Tennessee Department of Air Pollution Control (TDAPC) submitted a request to the EPA to incorporate paragraphs 1200–3–9–.01 (6), (7), and (8) into the Tennessee SIP (reference file TN151–01–7017). The paragraphs revise the chapter as
described below. 1200–3–9–.01(6): This paragraph clarifies that construction permits
issued under this rule are based on air contaminants only and do not affect the applicant’s obligation to obtain necessary permits from other government agencies. 1200–3–9–.01(7): This paragraph requires the applicant to pay the cost of publication of any notices required by law to effectuate the rights applied for. 1200–3–9–.01(8): This paragraph gives the requirements necessary for protecting visibility as it applies to the issuance of a construction permit.

On May 18, 1993, TDAPC submitted to EPA as part of a submittal of revisions to the VOC chapter, a request to add perchloroethylene to the list of exempt compounds in the definition of a VOC contained in 1200–3–18-.01(1). This definition was conditionally approved on February 27, 1995, based on the commitment by the State of Tennessee to delete it from the list of exempt VOC compounds within one year if EPA had not completed the rulemaking exempting perchloroethylene as a VOC. The rulemaking finalizing the exemption of perchloroethylene as a VOC compound was published by EPA in 61 FR 4588, on February 7, 1996. Therefore, the commitment has been met and perchloroethylene is considered an exempt compound in the
VOC definition contained in the
Tennessee SIP.

On February 21, 1995, TDAPC submitted to EPA a request to incorporate a new rule (1200–3–18–.33) regulating VOC emissions from the Manufacturing of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products (reference file TN153–01–7018). This rule applies to all reactors, distillation operations, crystallizers, centrifuges, vacuum dryers, air dryers, production equipment exhaust systems, rotaryvacuum filters and other filters, inprocess tanks, and leaks associated with the manufacturing of synthesized pharmaceutical products located in the
State of Tennessee. This rule does not apply to sources in Hamilton and Shelby counties whose total potential
VOC emissions from all the above listed sources are less than 25 tons per year (tpy), nor to sources throughout the State of Tennessee whose total potential VOC emissions are less than 100 tpy except for sources located in the
Nashville ozone nonattainment area. The rule applies to all the above listed
sources located in the Nashville ozone nonattainment area, regardless of size.
The emission standards and the monitoring and record keeping requirements contained in rule 1200–3–
18–.33 are consistent with the EPA guidance for RACT. The previous rule 1200–3–18–.33 was given limited approval in 60 FR 10504 on February 27, 1995. The submittal of this rule to replace the previous rule corrects the
deficiencies outlined in 60 FR 10504.

On February 8, 1996, TDAPC
submitted to EPA revisions to the Tennessee chapter regulating VOCs (1200–3–18) for incorporation into the
Tennessee SIP. These submittals
address some of the commitments of the conditional approval of Tennessee chapter 1200–3–18 on February 27, 1995 960 FR 10504). EPA is making the determination in this notice, that all conditional approvals necessary for ozone redesignation have been satisfied. In the first submittal dated February 8, 1996, (reference file TN161–01–9621),
Tennessee made seventeen revisions to

### 37388 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 139 / Thursday, July 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

chapter 1200–3–18. They are described
as follows. 1200–3–18–.01(45): A definition for
‘‘maximum theoretical emissions’’ was
added to the definitions section. This definition clarifies the quantity of VOC emissions by a source without control devices based on the design capacity or maximum production capacity of the source and 8,760 hours of operation per

year. 1200–3–18–.01(49): The term ‘‘operation’’ was defined as an activity.

1200–3–18–.02(2): The word ‘‘binding’’ was deleted from this paragraph for clarification. 1200–3–18–.02(5)(c): The phrase ‘‘which is legally enforceable’’ was deleted from the paragraph for
clarification. 1200–3–18–.02(7): The phrase ‘‘or in Chapter 21 of this division’’ was added to this paragraph for clarification. 1200–3–18–.02(8): The phrase ‘‘and nitrogen oxide emissions’’ was added to this paragraph to require sources subject to the emissions statement requirement
because of their VOC emissions to also report their nitrogen oxide emissions. This paragraph was granted limited approval in 60 FR 10504 on February 27, 1995, due to this deficiency. This revision corrects the deficiency. 1200–3–18–.02(8): The phrase ‘‘the owner or operator’’ was replaced by the phrase ‘‘an official of the company’’ to require an official of the company to certify the emissions statement. This paragraph was conditionally approved in 60 FR 10504 on February 27, 1995,
based on a commitment from Tennessee to revise the paragraph to include this provision. This revision satisfies that

commitment. 1200–3–18–.03(2)(b): The phrase ‘‘in the alternative, over a longer period’’ was replaced by the phrase ‘‘for an alternative period which has been approved by the Technical Secretary
and the EPA’’ for EPA to retain the approval authority of alternate control plans. 1200–3–18–.03(5)(b)(10): This paragraph was revised to require additional monitoring of catalytic incinerators used in the coating and printing industries to provide a more true representation of the actual performance. 1200–3–18–.04(3)(b)(1)(ii): This paragraph was revised to require additional monitoring of catalytic incinerators used in the non-coating and non-printing industries to provide a more true representation of the actual performance. 1200–3–18–.04(4): This paragraph was revised to more clearly state, ‘‘Provisions of this rule apply only to sources identified as subject to those provisions of this rule by other rules of this chapter’’. 1200–3–18–.20(1)(b)(2)(vii): This paragraph which exempted usage of 4.0 gallons per day of air drying materials from the miscellaneous metal parts rule was repealed by Tennessee after being disapproved by EPA in 60 FR 10504 on February 27, 1995. Tennessee substituted ‘‘reserved’’ for the language in this paragraph. 1200–3–18–.21(7)(d)(2)(x): This paragraph was revised to require additional monitoring of catalytic incinerators used in the coating of flat wood paneling to provide a more true representation of the actual performance. 1200–3–18–.36(1)(b): This paragraph was revised to more clearly identify the sources applicable to the petroleum solvent dry cleaning rule. 1200–3–18–.38(2)(c)(2): This paragraph was revised to require the use of 10% by weight rather than 20% by weight in determining whether a piece of equipment in VOC service in a synthetic organic chemical, polymer, or resin manufacturing operation is in ‘‘light liquid service’’. This paragraph was given limited approval in 60 FR 10504 on February 27, 1995, based on a commitment by Tennessee to correct
the rule. This revision satisfies that

commitment. 1200–3–18–.38(4): A provision was added to this rule to require specific testing after a leak is repaired. 1200–3–18–.39(5)(a)(2): A conversion factor was revised for calculating the
mass rates of total VOC. The conversion
factor was revised to be 2.95 × 10

¥ 9. In a letter to Tennessee on August 12, 1994, EPA derived the conversion factor which correctly is 2.595 × 10

¥ 9

. Tennessee incorrectly approved the
conversion factor as 2.95 × 10

¥ 9 which is more stringent than the correct 2.595

× 10

¥ 9. Therefore, EPA is approving the more stringent conversion factor. This paragraph was conditionally approved in 60 FR 10504 on February 27, 1995.
This revision satisfies that commitment.

In the second submittal dated February 8, 1996, (reference file TN162– 01–9622), Tennessee requested that EPA add chapter 1200–3–18–.78 ‘‘Other Facilities That Emit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) Of Fifty Tons Per
Year’’ to the Tennessee SIP and revise chapter 1200–3–18–.79 ‘‘Other Facilities That Emit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s)’’ of the Tennessee SIP. The
revisions are described as follows.
1200–3–18–.78: This rule, commonly referred to as a non-CTG (Control Techniques Guideline) RACT rule, is designed to apply to those major sources which are not subject to the other industry specific VOC RACT rules. Tennessee already has in their SIP a
non-CTG RACT rule for sources whose potential VOC emissions are above 100 tons per year (tpy). This rule applies to
sources located in the Nashville nonattainment area whose potential VOC emissions are above 50 tpy. This rule, however, contains language that makes it effective only if the Nashville
nonattainment area fails to attain the ozone standard by November 15, 1996, and after the Technical Secretary publishes legal notices in the five
nonattainment counties of this failure to
attain the ozone standard.
1200–3–18–.78 & .79: Miscellaneous
revisions were made to the table of
contents to allow for revisions to the SIP regarding these two rules. 1200–3–18–.79(1)(c): This paragraph, which exempts certain source categories
from the Tennessee non-CTG RACT rule for sources with potential emissions greater than 100 tpy, was amended by Tennessee to delete 13 categories from the list of source categories exempt from
this rule. 1200–3–18–.79(1)(d): Tennessee revised this paragraph to delete all the language previously contained in this section and inserted the phrase
‘‘reserved’’. This revision came after EPA disapproved this paragraph in 60 FR 10504 on February 27, 1995. 1200–3–18–.79(1)(e): This new paragraph was added to the rule to specifically identify those sources exempt from the standards and requirements of this rule due to the applicability of other rules. 120–3–18–.79(2): Several clarifying revisions were made to this paragraph to make it read more clearly. 1200–3–18–.79(6): This new paragraph was added to the rule which added monitoring and record keeping requirements for sources which became subject to this rule after the rule
effective date.

Another submittal amending chapter 1200–3–18 was made on February 23, 1996 (reference file TN–164–01–9626). This submittal deleted Knox County, previously a marginal ozone
nonattainment area which was redesignated to attainment in 58 FR 50271 on September 27, 1993, from the applicability portion of the emissions statement contained in paragraph 1200– 3–18–.02(8). Since Knox County submitted their redesignation request prior to the due date for emissions
statements and the State has
demonstrated that the deletion of this requirement will not adversely affect the maintenance of the ozone standard, this revision is approvable.

### 37389 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 139 / Thursday, July 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

On April 22, 1996, the TDAPC submitted to EPA for incorporation into their SIP a new VOC rule (1200–3–18– .43) applicable to offset lithographic printing operations with potential VOC emissions of 25 tpy or more (reference file TN168–01–9628). On April 25, 1996, the TDAPC submitted to EPA for incorporation into their SIP a new VOC rule (1200–3–18–.42) applicable to wood furniture finishing and cleaning operations with potential VOC emissions or 25 tpy or more (reference file TN169–01–9629). These rules are being approved into the SIP because the
VOC reductions from these rules are necessary to demonstrate maintenance
of the ozone standard. Since Tennessee applied for redesignation prior to the due date for these rules, the rules are not required to meet Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements. Should the Middle
Tennessee ozone nonattainment area violate the ozone standard prior to being redesignated to attainment, these rules may be required to be made more stringent to meet RACT requirements.

Final Action

The EPA is publishing this rulemaking without a prior proposal for approval because the Agency views this
as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, the EPA is proposing to approve the SIP revision
should adverse or critical comments be
filed. This action will be effective September 16, 1996 unless, by August 19, 1996, adverse or critical comments
are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,
this action will be withdrawn before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. All public
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the separate proposed 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 September 16, 1996.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(1), petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by September 16, 1996. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this rule for 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) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).)

This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214–2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

Nothing in this action shall be construed as permitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for a 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.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,
5 U.S.C. 601 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 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, I certify 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 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. section 7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA
must undertake various actions in association with proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan revision, the State and any affected local or tribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under Section 182 of the CAA. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform certain duties.
EPA has examined whether the rules being approved by this action will impose any new requirements. Since such sources are already subject to these regulations under State law, no new requirements are imposed by this approval. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action, and therefore there will be no significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.

Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office

Under section 801(a)(1)(A) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) as amended 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 this rule in today’s Federal Register. This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by section 804(2) of the APA as amended.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: June 24, 1996.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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 RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2219 is revised to read
as follows:

### 37390 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 139 / Thursday, July 18, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

§ 52.2219 Identification of plan— conditional approval.

EPA is conditionally approving the following revisions to the Tennessee SIP contingent on the State of Tennessee meeting the schedule to correct
deficiencies associated with the following rules which was committed to in letters dated October 7, 1994, and December 16, 1994, from the State of Tennessee to EPA Region 4.

(a) Rule 1200–3–18–.06 Handling, Storage and Disposal of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s): Paragraph (1) effective April 22, 1993.

(b) Rule 1200–3–18–.86 Performance Specifications for Continuous Emission Monitoring of Total Hydrocarbons: Subparagraph (11)(c) effective April 22,
1993.

3. Section 52.2220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(138) to read as
follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * (138) Revisions to chapter 1200–3–9 ‘‘Construction and Operating Permits’’ were submitted by the Tennessee Department of Air Pollution Control (TDAPC) to EPA on January 17, 1995. Revisions to chapter 1200–3–18 ‘‘Volatile Organic Compounds’’ were submitted by the TDAPC to EPA on February 21, 1995, February 8, 1996, February 23, 1996, April 22, 1996, and April 25, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Revisions to the State of Tennessee regulation 1200–3–9 ‘‘Construction and Operating Permits’’, subparagraphs 1200–3–9–.01 (6), (7), (8), effective on August 15, 1994.

(B) Revisions to the State of Tennessee regulation by the addition of
a new rule 1200–3–18–.33 ‘‘Manufacturing of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products’’, effective on November 21, 1993.

(C) Revisions to the State of Tennessee regulation 1200–3–18 ‘‘Volatile Organic Compounds’’ rules 1200–3–18–.01, 1200–3–18–.02, 1200– 3–18–.03, 1200–3–18–.04, 1200–3–18– .20, 1200–3–18–.21, 1200–3–18–.36, 1200–3–18–.38, 1200–3–18–.39 effective on October 9, 1995.

(D) Revisions to the State of Tennessee regulations effective October 25, 1995.

( 1) The addition of a the new rule
1200–3–18–.78 ‘‘Other Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC’s) of Fifty Tons Per Year’’.

(2

) Revisions to rule 1200–3–18–.79
‘‘Other Facilities that Emit Volatile Organic Compounds’’.

(E) Revisions to the State of Tennessee regulation by the addition of a new rule 1200–3–18–.42 ‘‘Wood Furniture Finishing and Cleaning’’, effective August 15, 1995.

(F) Revisions to the State of Tennessee regulation by the addition of a new rule 1200–3–18–.43 ‘‘Offset Lithographic Printing Operations’’, effective October 14, 1995.

(ii) Other material. None.

§ 52.2225 [Amended]

4. Section 52.2225 is amended by removing and reserving paragraphs (b) and (c).

[FR Doc. 96–18197 Filed 7–17–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 071–0005a; FRL–5464–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, Placer County Air Pollution Control 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 (SIP). The
revisions concern rules from the following air districts: El Dorado County
Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD), Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), 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 rules control VOC emissions from adhesives and sealants, architectural coatings, and wood products coatings. 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 action is effective on September 16, 1996 unless adverse or critical comments are received by August 19, 1996. If the effective date is delayed, a timely notice will be published in the Federal Register

. ADDRESSES : 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 (A–5–3), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA
94105. Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460. California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 92123–1095. El Dorado County Air Pollution Control

District, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, CA 95667. Placer County Air Pollution Control

District, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, CA
95603. Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nikole Reaksecker, Rulemaking Section (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 : Applicability

The rules being approved into the
California SIP include: EDCAPCD Rule 236—Adhesives, EDCAPCD Rule 215— Architectural Coatings, EDCAPCD Rule 237—Wood Products Coatings, PCAPCD Rule 235—Adhesives, PCAPCD Rule 218—Architectural Coatings, and
VCAPCD Rule 74.20—Adhesives and Sealants. These rules were submitted by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on October 13, 1995, May 24, 1995, November 30, 1994, and November 18, 1993.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated
a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in l977 (1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the Sacramento Metro (including portions of El Dorado and Placer counties) and Ventura County areas. 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 EDCAPCD, PCAPCD and VCAPCD 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-