[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 154 (Tuesday, August 11, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 42784-42786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-21519]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA162-0089; FRL-6141-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Santa Barbara County 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 California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning 
the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from sources 
coating metal parts and products in the Santa Barbara County Air 
Pollution Control District. The intended effect of proposing a limited 
approval and limited disapproval of this rule 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 proposed 
rule will incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. EPA 
has evaluated the rule and is proposing a simultaneous limited approval 
and limited disapproval under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA 
action on SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority because this 
revision, while strengthening the SIP, also does not fully meet the CAA 
provisions regarding plan submissions and requirements for 
nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 1998.

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 rule and EPA's evaluation report of the rule are 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal 
business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are also available for 
inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.
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,

[[Page 42785]]

[AIR-4], Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Telephone: (415) 744-
1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rule being proposed for approval into the California SIP is 
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Rule 
330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. This rule was 
submitted by the California Air Resource Board to EPA on October 13, 
1995.

II. Background

    On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment 
areas under the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act (1977 CAA or pre-
amended Act) that included Santa Barbara County (see 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 
81.305.) Santa Barbara County did not attain the ozone standard by the 
approved attainment date. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of 
California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act, 
that the Santa Barbara County portion of the SIP was inadequate to 
attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies 
in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15, 
1990, amendments to the 1977 CAA 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 adopted statutorily 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. Initially, Santa Barbara County was classified as 
moderate; 2 therefore, this area is subject to the RACT fix-
up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline. Santa Barbara County has 
since been reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Among 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).
    \2\ In 1990, Santa Barbara County retained its designation and 
was classified by operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and 
181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694 
(November 6, 1991). In 1997, Santa Barbara County was reclassified 
as a serious ozone nonattainment area. See 62 FR 65025, (December 
17, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules to EPA 
for incorporation into its SIP on October 13, 1995, including the rule 
being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's proposed 
action for SBCAPCD Rule 330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and 
Products. SBCAPCD revised and adopted Rule 330 on April 21, 1995. EPA 
found this rule complete on November 28, 1995 pursuant to EPA's 
completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix 
V.3 EPA is proposing limited approval and limited 
disapproval of this version of Rule 330.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA adopted 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rule 330 controls the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) 
from industrial sites coating a variety of metal parts and products. 
VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog. 
SBCAPCD--Rule 330 was adopted originally as part of SBCAPCD's effort to 
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and 
has been revised in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section 
182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. EPA's evaluation and proposed action for 
SBCAPCD--Rule 330 follow below.

III. 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 one. 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 which specify the minimum requirements that a rule must 
contain in order to be approved into the SIP. 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 SBCAPCD--Rule 330, Surface 
Coating of Metal Parts and Products is entitled, ``Surface Coating 
(Volume VI--Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and 
Products),'' EPA document # EPA-450/2-78-015. Further interpretations 
of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book. In general, these guidance 
documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully 
enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
    On May 5, 1982, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 330--
Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products that has been adopted by 
SBCAPCD on June 11, 1979. The October 15, 1995 submitted Rule 330 
includes the following significant changes from the current SIP version 
of the rule:

--new and added definitions;
--new emission limits for baked coatings at new facilities;
--capture and control efficiency requirements;
--application equipment requirements;
--closed container requirements;
--labeling requirements;
--record keeping requirements; and,
--test method requirements.

    EPA has evaluated SBCAPCD's submitted Rule 330 for consistency with 
the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the 
revisions address and correct many deficiencies previously identified 
by EPA. These corrected deficiencies have resulted in a clearer, more 
enforceable rule.
    Although SBCAPCD's submitted Rule 330 will strengthen the SIP, the 
rule still contains deficiencies which were required to be corrected 
pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of Part D of the CAA. 
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.


[[Page 42786]]


A detailed discussion of rule 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. Given these deficiencies, the Rule 330 
is not approvable pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA 
because it is inconsistent with the interpretation of section 172 of 
the 1977 CAA as found in the Blue Book and may lead to rule 
enforceability problems.
    Because of the above deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval 
of this rule under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the 
submitted rule is not composed of separable parts which meet all the 
applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval 
of the rule under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited 
approval of the submitted rule under section 110(k)(3) in light of 
EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations 
necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval 
is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited 
disapproval. To strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited approval 
of Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District's Rule 330--
Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products under sections 110(k)(3) 
and 301(a) of the CAA.
    At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of 
this rule 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. Under 
section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under 
section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment based on the 
submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by 
the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in 
section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 
months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions 
available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18-
month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective 
date of EPA's final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final 
disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement 
under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rule covered by this 
NPR has been adopted by the SBCAPCD is in effect in the Santa Barbara 
County Air Pollution Control District. EPA's final limited disapproval 
action will not prevent the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control 
District, the state of California, or EPA from enforcing this rule.
    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 will be considered separately in light of 
specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation 
to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically significant'' action under 
E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    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, I certify 
that 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 flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its action 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).

C. 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 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
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 proposed does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

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 compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: July 31, 1998.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 98-21519 Filed 8-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P