[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 232 (Thursday, December 3, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66758-66760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32004]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 162-0109; FRL-6194-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
proposed in the Federal Register on August 11, 1998. The revised rule
controls VOC emissions from sources coating metal parts and products in
the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. EPA's final
action will incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. The
intended effect of finalizing this action is to regulate emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) according to the requirements of the
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA is finalizing a
simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval under CAA
provisions regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and general
rulemaking authority because this revision, while strengthening the
SIP, also does not meet fully the CAA provisions regarding plan
submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas. Because of this
limited disapproval, EPA will be required to impose highway funding or
emission offset sanctions under the CAA unless the State submits and
EPA approves corrections to the identified deficiencies within 18
months of the effective date of this disapproval. Moreover, EPA will be
required to promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) unless the
deficiencies are corrected within 24 months of the effective date of
this disapproval.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on January 4, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report for
this 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 Office, (AIR-4), Air 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 95814; and,
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District 26 Castilian Drive,
Suite B-23, Goleta, CA 93117.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office,
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1226.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The rule being approved into the California SIP is Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Rule 330--Surface
Coating
[[Page 66759]]
of Metal Parts and Products. This rule was submitted by the California
Air Resource Board to EPA on October 13, 1995.
II. Background
On August 11, 1998 in 63 FR 42784, EPA proposed granting limited
approval and limited disapproval and including within the California
SIP Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District's (SBCAPCD)
Rule 330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. SBCAPCD revised
and adopted Rule 330 on April 21, 1995. The California Air Resource
Board submitted Rule 330 to EPA on October 13, 1995. This rule was
submitted in response to EPA's 1988 SIP Call and the CAA section
182(a)(2)(A) requirement that nonattainment areas fix their reasonably
available control technology (RACT) rules for ozone in accordance with
EPA guidance that interpreted the requirements of the pre-amendment
Act. A detailed discussion of the background for Rule 330 and
nonattainment areas is provided in the proposed rule cited above.
EPA evaluated Rule 330 for consistency with the requirements of the
CAA and EPA regulations and EPA's interpretation of these requirements
as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance documents referenced in
the proposed rule. EPA is finalizing the limited approval of Rule 330
to strengthen the SIP and finalizing the limited disapproval requiring
the correction of the remaining deficiencies. Rule 330 contains the
following deficiencies:
--the rule allows the use of up to 200 gallons per year of non-
compliant coating exceeding USEPA's 55 gallon per year limit; and,
--the rule does not require a metal parts and products coating
operation to record its daily use of non-compliant coatings.
A detailed discussion of Rule 330's deficiencies can be found in
the Technical Support Document for Rule 330 (7/98), which is available
from the U.S. EPA, Region 9 office.
III. Response to Public Comments
A 30-day public comment period was provided in 63 FR 42784. EPA
received no comment letters on this August 11, 1998 proposal for a
limited approval and limited disapproval.
IV. EPA Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of
SBCAPCD, Rule 330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. The
limited approval of this rule is finalized under section 110(k)(3)
given EPA's authority, pursuant to section 301(a), to adopt regulations
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. EPA's
approval is limited in the sense that although Rule 330 strengthens the
SIP, it does not meet the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because
of the rule's deficiencies discussed in the proposed rule. Thus, to
strengthen the SIP, EPA is granting limited approval of Rule 330 under
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. This action approves the Rule
330 into the SIP as a federally enforceable rule.
At the same time, EPA is finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule
330 because it contains deficiencies that have not been corrected as
required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA; and, as such, the rule
does not fully meet the requirements of Part D of the Act. As stated in
the proposed rule, upon the effective date of this final rule, the 18
month clock for sanctions and the 24 month FIP clock will begin. If the
State does not submit the required corrections and EPA does not approve
the submittal within 18 months of the effective date of the final rule,
either the highway sanction or the offset sanction will be imposed at
the 18 month mark. It should be noted that Rule 330 has been adopted by
the SBCAPCD and is in effect within the SBCAPCD. EPA's limited
disapproval action will not prevent the SBCAPCD, State of California,
or EPA from enforcing this rule.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership, EPA
may not issue a regulation that is not required by statute and that
creates a mandate upon a state, local, or tribal government, unless the
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by those governments, or EPA consults with
those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 12875 requires
EPA to provide the OMB a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to
develop an effective process permitting elected officials and other
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals
containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on state, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
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 E.O.
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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to the OMB, 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected and other representatives of
Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in
the development of regulatory policies on matters that
[[Page 66760]]
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 E.O. 13084 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 a 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. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit 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 United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 1, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the 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).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: November 18, 1998.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the 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 et seq.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (225)(i)(F) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(225) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) * * *
(1) Rule 330, adopted on April 21, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 98-32004 Filed 12-2-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
