[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 118 (Monday, June 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 33018-33021]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-15167]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 187-150; FRL-6358-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval of a revision to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in the Federal Register on 
June 18, 1998. The revision concerns a rule from the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District (SCAQMD). This approval action will 
incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. The intended 
effect of approving this rule is to regulate emissions of volatile 
organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The revised rule 
controls VOC emissions from architectural coatings. Thus, EPA is 
finalizing the approval of this revision into the California SIP 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on July 21, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revision 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 95812
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, 
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office, (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1199


[[Page 33019]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    This Federal Register action for the SCAQMD excludes the Los 
Angeles County portion of the Southeast Desert Air Quality Management 
District, otherwise known as the Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles 
County, which is now under the jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air 
Pollution Control District as of July 1, 1997. The rule being approved 
into the California SIP is SCAQMD, Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings. 
This rule was submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to 
EPA on November 26, 1996.

II. Background

    On June 18, 1998, in 63 FR 33312, EPA proposed to approve SCAQMD 
Rule 1113, Architectural Coatings into the California SIP. Rule 1113 
was adopted by SCAQMD on November 8, 1996, and was submitted by the 
CARB to EPA on November 26, 1996. This rule was submitted in response 
to EPA's 1988 SIP-Call and the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requirement 
that plans which are submitted to the EPA in order to achieve the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) contain enforceable 
emission limitations. A detailed discussion of the background for this 
rule and nonattainment area is provided in the proposed rulemaking 
cited above.
    EPA has evaluated the above rule for consistency with the 
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA interpretation of 
these requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance 
documents referenced in the proposed rulemaking cited above. EPA has 
found that the rule meets the applicable EPA requirements. The rule is 
enforceable and strengthens the applicable SIP. However, as noted in 
the proposed rulemaking cited above, it does not fulfill the SCAQMD's 
SIP-approved commitment in CTS-07 to reduce VOCs from architectural 
coatings by 75%. A detailed discussion of the rule provisions and 
evaluation has been provided in 63 FR 33312 and in a technical support 
document (TSD) dated May 1, 1998 available at EPA's Region IX office.

III. Response to Public Comments

    EPA provided for a 30-day public comment period in 63 FR 33312. EPA 
received two comments on the proposed rulemaking prior to the closing 
of the comment period on July 20, 1998. We received comments from the 
main trade association representing the paint industry, and from an 
attorney representing a major paint manufacturer.
    Comments: The trade association representing some 500 paint and 
coatings manufacturers, raw materials suppliers and distributors, 
submitted comments stating that while it supports EPA's national 
architectural coatings rule, it does not support VOC content limits for 
two categories of coatings contained in submitted Rule 1113. The 
association asserted that the VOC limits for lacquers and flats are not 
technologically or economically feasible and noted that it was involved 
in litigation over this issue. This commenter suggested that EPA must 
not approve the revisions to Rule 1113 because of the alleged 
technological and economical infeasibility.
    The attorney representing a major paint manufacturer submitted 
similar comments. This commenter indicated that his client contested 
the VOC limit for flats and a small manufacturers exemption in 
submitted Rule 1113. Citing Sierra Club v. Indiana-Kentucky Electric 
Corp., 716 F.2d 1145 (7th Cir. 1983), the commenter argued that EPA 
approval of the revised Rule 1113 prior to resolution of the litigation 
could result in confusion if the Court invalidated the revisions to 
Rule 1113. This commenter explicitly requested that EPA postpone 
approval of at least portions of submitted Rule 1113 until resolution 
of the litigation.
    Response: Both commenters asserted that SCAQMD Rule 1113 as revised 
is technologically and economically infeasible. For this reason, each 
commenter requested that EPA either reconsider or delay approval of all 
or portions of Rule 1113. Under CAA section 110(a)(2), EPA may not 
consider the economic or technological feasibility of the provisions of 
the SCAQMD Rule in approval of the SIP revision. Union Electric Co. v. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265-66 (1976). As noted by the Supreme Court, it is 
the province of State and local authorities to determine whether or not 
to impose more stringent limits that may require technology forcing. 
EPA must assess the SIP revision on the basis of the factors set forth 
in CAA section 110(a)(2) which do not provide for the disapproval of a 
rule in a SIP based upon economic or technological infeasibility.
    Both commenters also argued that the pendency of litigation by them 
against the SCAQMD Rule should preclude EPA approval of the revisions 
to Rule 1113. To the extent that such litigation concerned the economic 
and technological feasibility of the Rule, such litigation is not 
relevant to EPA's SIP approval for the reasons discussed above. One 
commenter further stated, however, that SCAQMD may have violated state 
procedural law in the adoption of Rule 1113, thereby implying that EPA 
should disapprove or delay approval of the SIP revision because SCAQMD 
might not have authority under State or local law to carry out the SIP 
as required by CAA section 110(a)(2)(E)(i).
    EPA believes that it is inappropriate to disapprove or delay 
approval of a SIP revision merely on the basis of pending State court 
challenges to SCAQMD's regulation. To do so would allow parties to 
impede SIP development merely by initiating litigation. Alternatively, 
were EPA required to assess the validity of a litigant's State law 
claims in the SIP approval process, EPA would have to act like a State 
court, in effect weighing the competing claims of a State and a 
litigant. Therefore, EPA does not interpret CAA section 110(a)(2) to 
require the Agency to make such judgments in the SIP approval process, 
especially where the validity of those challenges turns upon issues of 
State procedural law. The Agency may, however, consider disapproval of 
a SIP revision because of pending challenges where it deems appropriate 
because of the facts and circumstances of the underlying challenge, as 
in the case of allegations of violation of Federal law administered by 
the Agency. Moreover, EPA believes that the structure of the CAA 
provides appropriate mechanisms for litigants to pursue their claims 
and appropriate remedies in the event that they are ultimately 
successful, as discussed in the case cited by a commenter. See, Sierra 
Club v. Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp., 716 F.2d 1145, 1153 (7th Cir. 
1983) (State court invalidation of a SIP provision resulted in an 
unenforceable SIP provision which the State had to reenact or which EPA 
may use as the basis for a SIP call).
    In any case, EPA notes that the State trial court has now ruled 
against those parties who challenged Rule 1113, including the 
commenters. See, Sherwin-Williams Co. et al. v. SCAQMD, [Superior Court 
of Cal., County of Los Angeles, No. BC162162, Order dated Feb. 3, 
1999]. The outcome of that litigation confirms EPA's conclusion that 
SCAQMD has provided the necessary assurances contemplated in CAA 
section 110(a)(2). EPA acknowledges that the ruling of the trial court 
against the litigants may not be the final disposition of their claims, 
but the Agency believes in this instance that until a court rules 
against SCAQMD on the commenters' State law claims, the Agency cannot 
disapprove the SIP revision on the basis of those claims.

[[Page 33020]]

For the reasons discussed above, if the litigants appeal the order of 
the trial court, the mere pendency of an appeal by the commenters 
likewise does not provide a basis for the Agency to delay or disapprove 
the SIP revision.
    Finally, one commenter also suggested that EPA should disapprove 
the revision of Rule 1113 because its VOC content limits differed from 
those of EPA's proposed national rule for architectural coatings under 
CAA section 183(e). As stated in the preamble to the final rule for 
architectural coatings, Congress did not intend section 183(e) to 
preempt any existing or future State rules governing VOC emissions from 
consumer and commercial products. See, e.g., 63 FR 48,848, 48,857 
(Sept. 11, 1998). Section 59.410 of the final architectural coatings 
regulations explicitly provides that States and their political 
subdivisions retain authority to adopt and enforce their own additional 
regulations affecting these products. See, 63 FR 48,848, 48,884 (Sept. 
11, 1998). Accordingly, SCAQMD retains authority to impose more 
stringent limits for architectural coatings as part of its SIP, and its 
election to do so is not a basis for EPA to disapprove the SIP. See, 
Union Electric Co. v. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 265-66 (1976). EPA favors 
national uniformity in consumer and commercial product regulation, but 
recognizes that some localities may need more stringent regulation to 
combat more serious and more intransigent ozone nonattainment problems.

IV. EPA Action

    EPA is finalizing action to approve the above rule for inclusion 
into the California SIP. EPA is approving the submittal under section 
110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and Part D of 
the CAA and in light of EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to 
adopt regulations necessary to further air quality by strengthening the 
SIP. This approval action will incorporate this rule into the federally 
approved SIP. The intended effect of approving this rule is to regulate 
emissions of VOCs in accordance with the requirements of the CAA.
    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.

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 to 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 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 
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 flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action.

[[Page 33021]]

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 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 August 20, 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 compounds.

    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: May 28, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    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 paragraphs (c)(242) 
introductory text, (c)(242)(i) introductory text, and (c)(242)(i)(B) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (242) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on November 26, 1996, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
    (B) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1113, adopted on September 2, 1977 and amended on November 
8, 1996.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-15167 Filed 6-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P