Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2563

not prevent mariners from transiting the

West Bay Bridge. It will require only

that mariners plan their transits.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this action will

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

‘‘Small entities’’ include independently

owned and operated small businesses

that are not dominant in their field and

that otherwise qualify as ‘‘small

business concerns’’ under section 3 of

the Small Business Act (15 U.S.C. 632).

Because of the reasons discussed in the

Regulatory Evaluation above, the Coast

Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b)

that this action, if adopted, will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This rule contains no collection of

information requirements under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3501 et seq.).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

proposal in accordance with the

principles and criteria contained in

Executive Order 12612, and it has been

determined that this proposed

regulation does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard considered the

environmental impact of this proposal

and concluded that, under section

2.B.2.e.(32)(e) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, this proposal is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination is

available in the docket for inspection or

copying where indicated under

ADDRESSES.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117

Bridges.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to

amend 33 CFR part 117 as follows:

PART 117—DRAWBRIDGE

OPERATION REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for Part 117

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33

CFR 1.05–1(g); section 117.255 also issued

under the authority of Pub. L. 102–587, 106

Stat. 5039.

2. Section 117.622 is added to read as

follows:

§ 117.622 West Bay.

(a) The draw of the West Bay Bridge,

in Osterville, Massachusetts, shall open

on signal from April 1 through October

31 on the following schedule:

(1) From April 1 through June 14 and

October 12 through October 31; 8 a.m.

to 4 p.m.

(2) June 15 through June 30; 8 a.m. to

6 p.m.

(3) July 1 until Labor Day; 8 a.m. to

8 p.m.

(4) Labor Day through October 11; 8

a.m. to 5 p.m.

(5) At all other times from April 1

through October 31, the draw shall open

on signal if at least four (4) hours

advance notice is given by calling the

number posted at the bridge.

(b) From November 1 through March

31, the draw shall open if at least

twenty-four (24) hours advance notice is

given by calling the number posted at

the bridge.

(c) The owners of this bridge shall

provide and keep in good legible

condition clearance gauges for each

draw with figures not less than 12

inches high designed, installed and

maintained according to the provisions

of section 118.160 of this chapter.

Dated: December 29, 1994.

J.L. Linnon,

Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander,

First Coast Guard District.

[FR Doc. 95–565 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OAQPS No. CA–102–3–6756a; FRL–5135–

5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Placer

County Air Pollution Control District

(PCAPCD) and San Diego County Air

Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking

(NPRM).

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which

concern recordkeeping requirements for

sources emitting volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) and which concern

the control of VOC emissions from

metal can and coil coating operations.

The intended effect of proposing

approval of these rules is to regulate

emissions of VOCs in accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

EPA’s final action on this notice of

proposed rulemaking (NPRM) will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. EPA has evaluated each

of these rules and is proposing to

approve them 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: Comments must be received on

or before February 9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section

[A–5–3], Air and Toxics 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 each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814.

Placer County Air Pollution Control

District, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, CA

95603.

San Diego County Air Pollution

Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive,

San Diego, CA 92123.

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 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1187.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being proposed for approval

into the California SIP include: PCAPCD

Rule 223, Metal Container Coating;

PCAPCD Rule 410, Recordkeeping for

Volatile Organic Compound Emissions;

and SDCAPCD Rule 67.4, Metal

Container, Metal Closure, and Metal

Coil Coating Operations. These rules

were submitted by the California Air

Resources Board to EPA on November

30, 1994, December 21, 1994, and

October 19, 1994, respectively.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 CAA or

pre-amended Act), that included Placer
2564 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing control technique guidelines

(CTGs).

2Placer County and San Diego County retained

their designations of nonattainment and were

classified by operation of law pursuant to sections

107(d) and 181(a) upon the date of enactment of the

CAA. See 55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991).

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).

County and San Diego County. 43 FR

8964; 40 CFR 81.305. Because these

areas were unable to meet the statutory

attainment date of December 31, 1982,

California requested under section

172(a)(2), and EPA approved, an

extension of the attainment date to

December 31, 1987. 40 CFR 52.222. On

May 26, 1988, EPA notified the

Governor of California, pursuant to

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

Act, that the above districts’ 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 SIPCall). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that nonattainment areas

fix their deficient reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules for

ozone and established a deadline of May

15, 1991 for states to submit corrections

of those deficiencies. Section

182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated

as nonattainment prior to enactment of

the amendments and classified as

marginal or above as of the date of

enactment. It requires such areas to

adopt and correct RACT rules pursuant

to pre-amended section 172(b) as

interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance.1 EPA’s SIP-Call used that

guidance to indicate the necessary

corrections for specific nonattainment

areas. Both Placer County and San Diego

County are classified as serious; 2

therefore, these areas were subject to the

RACT fix-up requirement and the May

15, 1991 deadline.

The State of California submitted

many revised RACT rules for

incorporation into its SIP on October 19,

1994, November 30, 1994, and

December 21, 1994, including the rules

being acted on in this document. This

document addresses EPA’s proposed

action for PCAPCD Rule 223, Metal

Container Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410,

Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD

Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal

Closure, and Metal Coil Coating

Operations. PCAPCD adopted Rules 223

and 410 on October 6, 1994 and

November 3, 1994, respectively.

SDCAPCD adopted Rule 67.4 on

September 27, 1994. These submitted

rules were found to be complete on

December 7, 1994, December 23, 1994,

and December 1, 1994, 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.

PCAPCD Rule 223 controls VOC

emissions from metal container coating

operations. PCAPCD Rule 410

establishes recordkeeping requirements

for sources emitting VOCs. SDCAPCD

Rule 67.4 controls VOC emissions from

metal container, metal closure, and

metal coil coating operations. VOCs

contribute to the production of ground

level ozone and smog. These rules were

adopted as part of the districts’ effort 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

PCAPCD Rule 223 and SDCAPCD Rule

67.4 is entitled, ‘‘Control of Volatile

Organic Emissions from Existing

Stationary Sources—Volume II: Surface

Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,

Automobiles, and Light-Duty Trucks’’,

EPA–450/2–77–008. The guidance

document used to evaluate PCAPCD

Rule 410 is entitled, ‘‘Recordkeeping

Guidance Document for Surface Coating

Operations and the Graphics Arts

Industry’’, EPA–340/1–88–003. 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.

PCAPCD Rule 223 includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP:

• Adds definitions which improve

rule clarity and enforceability,

• Regulates emissions from coil

coating, the interior body spray of three

piece cans, tab press lubricant, and

necker lubricants,

• Lowers emission limits for the

interior body spray of two piece cans

and new drums, pails and lids coatings,

• Allows emission control systems to

be used by sources using noncomplying

coatings,

• Specifies coating application

methods,

• Prohibits use of coatings which

could violate the provisions of the rule,

• Regulates the use of surface

preparation and clean-up solvents,

• Adds a compliance schedule to the

administrative requirements,

• Requires sources using an emission

control device to submit an Operation

and Maintenance Plan and to maintain

daily records,

• States that compliance with the

standards of Section 302 shall be

demonstrated by conducting annual

source testing of the emission control

equipment and by analyzing coating

VOC content,

• Includes test methods for

determining vapor pressure of an

organic solvent used in a gun washing

system and for determining capture and

control efficiency.

PCAPCD Rule 410 includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP:

• Removes reference to unspecified

test methods. SDCAPCD’s submitted

Rule 67.4 includes the following

significant changes from the current SIP:

• Redefines ‘‘closure’’, ‘‘exempt

compound’’, and ‘‘volatile organic

compound (VOC)’’, and defines
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 6 / Tuesday, January 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 2565

‘‘exterior body spray’’ and ‘‘letterpress

coating’’,

• Specifies VOC limits for letterpress

coatings, other coil coatings, and end

sealing compounds applied to pet food

and non-food containers,

• Removes portions containing Air

Pollution Control Officer Discretion,

• Requires air pollution control

systems installed to include emissions

collection systems with an overall

capture and control device efficiency of

at least 85 percent by weight,

• Adds recordkeeping requirements

for solvent usage and sources using

noncomplying coatings,

• Allows the measurement of VOC

content in letterpress coatings to be

determined using SDCAPCD’s Method

24D,

• Requires the measurement of VOC

content in noncomplying coatings to be

conducted in accordance with EPA

Methods 18 and 25 or 25A,

• Includes requirements when

perfluorocarbon (PFC) compounds and

other exempt compounds are present in

the coating, cleaning, or surface

preparation material.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

PCAPCD Rule 223, Metal Container

Coating; PCAPCD Rule 410,

Recordkeeping for Volatile Organic

Compound Emissions; and SDCAPCD

Rule 67.4, Metal Container, Metal

Closure, and Metal Coil Coating

Operations, 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. Section 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: December 27, 1994.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–521 Filed 1–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 52

[WI45–01–6501; FRL–5136–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Wisconsin

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: USEPA proposing to approve

the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision, for the Milwaukee ozone

nonattainment area (Kenosha,

Milwaukee, Ozaukee, Racine,

Washington, and Waukesha counties),

as submitted by the State of Wisconsin.

The purpose of the revision is to offset

any growth in emissions from growth in

vehicle miles traveled (VMT), or

number of vehicle trips, and to attain

reduction in motor vehicle emissions, in

combination with other measures, as

needed to comply with Reasonable

Further Progress (RFP) milestones of the

Clean Air Act (Act). Wisconsin

submitted the implementation plan

revision to satisfy the statutory

mandates, found in section 182 of the

Act, which requires the State to submit

a SIP revision that identifies and adopts

specific enforceable Transportation

Control Measures (TCM) to offset any

growth in emissions from growth in

VMT, or number of vehicle trips, in

severe ozone nonattainment areas.

The rationale for this proposed

approval is set forth below; additional

information is available at the address

indicated below.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received on or before February

9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Toxics and Radiation Branch (AT–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the Wisconsin SIP revision

request and USEPA’s analysis are

available for inspection at the following

address: (It is recommended that you

telephone Michael Leslie at (312) 353–

6680 before visiting the Region 5

Office.) U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604.

A copy of the Wisconsin SIP revision

request is available for inspection at the

office of: Jerry Kurtzweg (ANR–443),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

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

20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael G. Leslie, Air Toxics and

Radiation Branch, Regulation

Development Section (AT–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312)

353–6680.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 182(d)(1)(A) of the Act

requires States that contain severe ozone

nonattainment areas to adopt

transportation control measures and

transportation control strategies to offset

growth in emissions from growth in

VMT or number of vehicle trips and to

attain reductions in motor vehicle

emissions (in combination with other

measures) as needed to comply with the

Act’s RFP milestones and attainment

requirements. The requirements for

establishing a VMT Offset program are

set forth in 182(d)(1)(A) and discussed

in the General Preamble to Title I of the

Act (57 FR 13498 April 16, 1992).

For certain program required under

the Act (including VMT-Offset), USEPA

had earlier adopted a policy pursuant to

section 110(k)(4) of the Act to

conditionally approve SIPs that

committed to provide the USEPA by a