Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20421

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 217–0231; FRL–6579–2]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, San Joaquin

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited

approval and limited disapproval of a

revision to the San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

revision concerns volatile organic

compound (VOC) emissions from

adhesives. We are proposing action on

a local rule that regulates this emission

source under the Clean Air Act as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We

are taking comments on this proposal

and plan to follow with a final action.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

May 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

You can inspect copies of the

submitted rule and EPA’s technical

support document (TSD) at our Region

IX office during normal business hours.

You may also see copies of the

submitted rule at the following

locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, 1990 E.

Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 744–1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What rule did the State submit?

B. Are there other versions of this rule?

C. What is the purpose of the submitted

rule?

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation

criteria?

C. What are the rule deficiencies?

D. EPA recommendations to further

improve the rule.

E. Proposed action and public comment.

III. Background information

A. Why was this rule submitted?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State’s Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this

proposal with the date that it was

adopted by the local air agency and

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB).

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted

SJVUAPCD ..................................... 4653 ............................................... Adhesives ....................................... 03/19/98 09/29/98

On January 26, 1999, this rule

submittal was found to meet the

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V, which must be met before

formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of This

Rule?

There are no previous versions of

Rule 4653 in the SIP, although the

SJVUAPCD adopted earlier versions of

this rule on March 17, 1994 and April

13, 1995, and CARB submitted them to

us on May 24, 1994 and August 10,

1995, respectively. While we can act on

only the most recently submitted

version, we have reviewed materials

provided with previous submittals.

C. What is the Purpose of the Submitted

Rule?

Rule 4653 limits the VOC emissions

resulting from the application of

adhesives and adhesive primers. The

TSD has more information about this

rule.

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

Generally, SIP rules must be

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the

Act), must require Reasonably Available

Control Technology (RACT) for major

sources in nonattainment areas (see

section 182(a)(2)(A)), and must not relax

existing requirements (see sections

110(l) and 193). The SJVUAPCD

regulates an ozone nonattainment area

(see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 4653 must

fulfill RACT.

Guidance and policy documents that

we used to define specific enforceability

and RACT requirements include the

following:

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November

24, 1987.

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation

Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations;

Clarification to Appendix D of

November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Document,’’ (Blue Book), notice of

availability published in the May 25,

1988 Federal Register.

3. The State of California Air

Resources Board’s ‘‘Determination of

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) and Best Available

Retrofit Control Technology (BARCT)

for Adhesives and Sealants,’’ December

1998.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation

Criteria?

This rule improves the SIP by

establishing emission limits for

adhesives, by specifying application

methods and housekeeping practices, by

designating appropriate solvents, and by

requiring recordkeeping. This rule is

largely consistent with the relevant

policy and guidance regarding

enforceability, RACT and SIP

relaxations. Rule provisions which do

not meet the evaluation criteria are

summarized below and discussed

further in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

These provisions conflict with

sections 110 and 182 and part D of the

Act and prevent full approval of the SIP

revision.

1. Rule 4653 establishes VOC limits

which do not meet RACT for specialty

contact adhesives which are labeled

exclusively for the bonding of single-ply

roof material or immersible products,

for adhesives used to bond porous

materials, and for surface preparation

solvents.

2. Under section 4.1.1, certain exempt

operations are only required to maintain

monthly records documenting the type

20422 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules

and quantity of adhesive products used.

These operations, however, may

potentially use noncompliant materials

which necessitates that daily records be

kept.

3. SJVUAPCD included an exemption

in section 4.1.9 for contact adhesives

subject to 16 CFR part 1302. EPA is

unable to approve the inclusion of this

exemption without further justification

because compliant formulations of these

products that perform adequately

already exist in the market place.

D. EPA recommendations to further

improve the rules.

The TSD describes additional rule

revisions that do not affect EPA’s

current action but are recommended for

the next time the local agency modifies

the rules.

E. Proposed action and public comment.

As authorized in sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is proposing

a limited approval of the submitted rule

to improve the SIP. If finalized, this

action would incorporate the submitted

rule into the SIP, including those

provisions identified as deficient. This

approval is limited because EPA is

simultaneously proposing a limited

disapproval of the rule under section

110(k)(3). If this disapproval is

finalized, sanctions will be imposed

under section 179 of the Act unless EPA

approves a subsequent SIP revision that

corrects the rule deficiencies within 18

months. These sanctions would be

imposed as described in 59 FR 39832

(August 4, 1994). A final disapproval

would also trigger the federal

implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). Note that the

submitted rule has been adopted by the

SJVUAPCD, and EPA’s final limited

disapproval would not prevent the local

agency from enforcing it.

We will accept comments from the

public on the proposed limited approval

and limited disapproval for the next 30

days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?

VOCs help produce ground-level

ozone and smog, which harm human

health and the environment. Section

110(a) of the CAA requires states to

submit regulations that control VOC

emissions. Table 2 lists some of the

national milestones leading to the

submittal of this local agency VOC rule.

TABLE 2—OZONE NONATTAINMENT

MILESTONES

Date Event

March 3,

1978.

EPA promulgated a list of ozone

nonattainment areas under the

Clean Air Act as amended in

1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR

81.305.

May 26,

1988.

EPA notified Governors that parts

of their SIPs were inadequate to

attain and maintain the ozone

standard and requested that

they correct the deficiencies

(EPA’s SIP-Call). See section

110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended

Act.

November

15,

1990.

Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 were enacted. Pub. L.

101–549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

May 15,

1991.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that

ozone nonattainment areas correct deficient RACT rules by this

date.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

Regulatory Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997),

applies to any rule that: (1) Is

determined to be ‘‘economically

significant’’ as defined under Executive

Order 12866, and (2) concerns an

environmental health or safety risk that

EPA has reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If

the regulatory action meets both criteria,

the Agency must evaluate the

environmental health or safety effects of

the planned rule on children, and

explain why the planned regulation is

preferable to other potentially effective

and reasonably feasible alternatives

considered by the Agency. This rule is

not subject to Executive Order 13045

because it is does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or

uniquely affects the communities of

Indian tribal governments, and that

imposes substantial direct compliance

costs on those communities, unless the

Federal government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal

governments, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget, in a separately

identified section of the preamble to the

rule, a description of the extent of EPA’s

prior consultation with representatives

of affected tribal governments, a

summary of the nature of their concerns,

and a statement supporting the need to

issue the regulation. In addition,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal

governments ‘‘to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of

regulatory policies on matters that

significantly or uniquely affect their

communities.’’ Today’s rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct

effects on the States, on the relationship

between the national government and

the States, or on the distribution of

power and responsibilities among the

various levels of government.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20423

This proposed rule will not have

substantial direct effects on the States,

on the relationship between the national

government and the States, or on the

distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

approves a state rule implementing a

federal standard, and does not alter the

relationship or the distribution of power

and responsibilities established in the

Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because SIP approvals under

section 110 and subchapter I, part D of

the Clean Air Act do not create any new

requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

its actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. 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 annual 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 does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

proposed action does not require the

public to perform activities conducive

to the use of VCS.

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 et seq.

Dated: March 30, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–9392 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 226–0235; FRL–6578–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Tehama

County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited

approval and a simultaneous limited

disapproval of revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for the Tehama County Air

Pollution Control District (TCAPCD).

The revisions concern Rule 4.31—

Industrial, Institutional, and

Commercial Boilers, Steam Generators,

and Process Heaters, Rule 4.34—

Stationary Piston Engines, and Rule

4.37—Determination of Reasonably

Available Control Technology for the

Control of Oxides of Nitrogen from

Stationary Gas Turbines.

The intended effect of proposing

limited approval and a simultaneous

limited disapproval of the rules is to

regulate emissions of NOX in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA’s final action on

the proposed rules will incorporate the

rules into the federally approved SIP.

EPA has evaluated the rules and is

proposing a limited approval and a

simultaneous limited disapproval under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals and general

rulemaking authority because these

revisions do not fully meet the CAA

provisions regarding unapprovable

executive officer discretion.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office,

AIR–4, Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the rules and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rules are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

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 95812

Tehama County APCD, P.O. Box 38

(1750 Walnut Street) Red Bluff, CA

96080

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Addison, Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: