[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