[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 74 (Monday, April 17, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 20421-20423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9392]



[[Page 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

[[Page 20422]]

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.

[[Page 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 cost-effective 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