Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 75 / Wednesday, April 19, 1995 / Proposed Rules 19555

3EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

requirement and the May 15, 1991

deadline.

The State of California submitted

many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on February

24, 1995, including the rules being acted

on in this document. This document

addresses EPA’s proposed action for

SCAQMD Rule 1153, Commercial

Bakery Ovens; and VCAPCD Rule 74.12,

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and

Products. The SCAQMD adopted Rule

1153 on January 13, 1995 and the

VCAPCD adopted Rule 74.12 on January

10, 1995. These submitted rules were

found to be complete on March 10, 1995

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V 3 and are being proposed for

approval into the SIP.

SCAQMD Rule 1153 controls VOC

emissions from commercial bakery

ovens; and VCAPCD Rule 74.12 controls

VOC emissions from facilities that apply

coatings to metal parts or products.

VOCs contribute to the production of

ground-level ozone and smog. SCAQMD

Rule 1153 and VCAPCD Rule 74.12

were adopted as part of each district’s

efforts to achieve the National Ambient

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for

ozone and in response to EPA’s SIP-Call

and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA

requirement. The following is EPA’s

evaluation and proposed action for

these rules.

EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote

1. Among those provisions is the

requirement that a VOC rule must, at a

minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the

pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared a series of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

The CTGs are based on the underlying

requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for what is RACT

for specific source categories. Under the

CAA, Congress ratified EPA’s use of

these documents, as well as other

Agency policy, for requiring States to

‘‘fix-up’’ their RACT rules. See section

182(a)(2)(A). The CTG applicable to

VCAPCD Rule 74.12 is entitled,

‘‘Control of Volatile Organic Emissions

from Existing Stationary Sources—

Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal

Parts and Products’’, EPA–450/2–78–0–

015, June 1978. For some source

categories, such as commercial bakery

ovens (SCAQMD Rule 1153), EPA did

not publish a CTG. In these cases, the

district may determine what controls are

required by reviewing the operation of

facilities subject to the regulation and

evaluating regulations for similar

sources in other areas. EPA did publish

an Alternative Control Technology

Document (ACT) entitled, ‘‘Alternative

Control Technology Document for

Bakery Oven Emissions’’, EPA 453/R–

92–017, December 1972 as guidance for

states when developing rules controlling

VOC emissions from bakeries. Further

interpretations of EPA policy are found

in the Blue Book, referred to in footnote

1. In general, these guidance documents

have been set forth to ensure that VOC

rules are fully enforceable and

strengthen or maintain the SIP.

SCAQMD’s submitted Rule 1153,

Commercial Bakery Ovens, includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP:

• Executive Officer discretion in

specifying test methods was eliminated.

• The ‘‘exempt compounds’’

definition was updated.

VCAPCD submitted Rule 74.12,

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and

Products is a new rule and includes:

• Limits for the ROC content of metal

surface coatings and solvents used to

clean coating application equipment

and metal surfaces prior to coating.

• The use of add-on equipment to

control emissions of ROCs if

noncompliant coatings are used.

• Requirements for monthly records

of complying coatings and daily records

of noncompliant coating applied.

• Test methods are included to

determine compliance.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

SCAQMD Rule 1153, Commercial

Bakery Ovens; and VCAPCD Rule 74.12,

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and

Products are being proposed for

approval under section 110(k)(3) of the

CAA as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a) and Part D.

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).

The OMB has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order

12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compound.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 12, 1995.

John C. Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–9707 Filed 4–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W