[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 9 (Thursday, January 13, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2046-2048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-624]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA172-0203; FRL-6513-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, Kern County Air Pollution Control
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
August 10, 1999. This revision concerns Kern County Air Pollution
Control District (KCAPCD)--Rule 410.4, Surface Coating of Metal Parts
and Products. 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) according to
the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the
Act). This revised rule controls VOC emissions from the surface coating
of miscellaneous metal parts and products. 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 February 14, 2000.
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, SW., Washington, D.C. 20460;
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812; and,
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 M Street, Suite
302, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
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
EPA is approving Kern County Air Pollution Control District
(KCAPCD) Rule 410.4, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products for
inclusion within the California SIP. This rule was submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on May 10, 1996.
II. Background
On August 19, 1999 (see 64 FR 45216), EPA proposed to approve
KCAPCD Rule 410.4, Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. KCAPCD
Rule 410.4 was adopted and revised on March 7, 1996. In turn, the
California Air Resources Board submitted this rule to EPA on May 10,
1996. CARB submitted this rule 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
according to EPA guidance that interpreted the requirements of the pre-
amendment Act. A detailed discussion of the background for KCAPCD Rule
410.4 and nonattainment areas is provided in the August 19, 1999 Notice
Direct Final Rulemaking (NDFRM) (see 64 FR 45178).
Having received a public comment on its August 19, 1999 direct
final action to approve KCAPCD Rule 410.4, EPA removed this revision to
the California SIP on November 8, 1999 (see 64 FR 60688). EPA will
address this comment within this rulemaking.
EPA evaluated KCAPCD Rule 410.4 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 NDFRM cited above. EPA has found that this
rule meets the applicable EPA requirements. A detailed discussion of
the rule provisions and EPA's evaluation has been provided in the
August 19, 1999 NDFRM (see 64 FR 45178) and in the technical support
document (TSD) available at EPA's Region IX office.
III. Response to Public Comments
A 30-day public comment period was provided in the NPRM (see 64 FR
45216). EPA received one comment
[[Page 2047]]
concerning KCAPCD Rule 410.4 from Canam Steel Corporation (CSC). Where
KCAPCD Rule 410.4 sets a VOC coating emissions limit of 340 gram/liter
for air dried metal parts and products, CSC suggests that Rule 410.4 be
changed to allow structural steel fabricators to use a higher VOC
content coating. CSC asserts that when dip coating is used to coat
large joists and structural steel members, a higher VOC content and
less viscous coating may result in less overall VOC emissions than Rule
410.4's 340 gram per liter emissions limit.
EPA Response: KCAPCD Rule 410.4's 340 gram/liter VOC emissions
limit is consistent with the relevant California Determination of
Reasonably Available Control Technology and exceeds EPA's Control
Technique Guideline emissions limit of 420 grams/liter for the air
dried coating of miscellaneous metal parts and products. Because
KCAPCD's 340 gram/liter VOC emission limit is part of the California
SIP, KCAPCD cannot raise and EPA cannot approve a higher VOC emissions
limit without considering and addressing the anti-backsliding
requirements of Sections 110(l) and 193 of the Clean Air Act. These
sections of the Clean Air Act restrict EPA's ability to approve state
actions that may weaken the California SIP.
KCAPCD's adoption of the 340 gram/liter emissions limit and EPA's
approval of this limit into the California SIP predates the March 7,
1996 adoption described within EPA's August 19, 1999 proposal. EPA
approved the 340 grams per liter VOC emissions limit into the
California SIP on July 25, 1996 (see 61 FR 38571) after reviewing the
April 6, 1995 adopted version of KCAPCD Rule 410.4. Only recently have
other states and EPA been able to review CSC's studies and consider
revising their SIPs (see 64 FR 32415, June 17, 1999).
If Canam Steel Corp. wishes to pursue changes to KCAPCD Rule 410.4,
EPA suggests that CSC present its studies to the KCAPCD and the CARB
for consideration. Should California choose to amend the Rule 410.4, it
must address Sections 110(l) and 193 of the CAA.
IV. EPA Action
EPA is finalizing action to approve KCAPCD Rule 410.4--Surface
Coating of Metal Parts and Products 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. This approval
action will incorporate KCAPCD Rule 410.4 into the federally approved
SIP. The intended effect of approving this rule is to regulate
emissions of VOCs according to requirements of the CAA.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 13132
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA
consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of
developing the proposed regulation.
This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national government and the States, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various
levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR
43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 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, Executive Order 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 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 Executive
Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency
to conduct
[[Page 2048]]
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. 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
I. 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 March 13, 2000. 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.
Dated: December 7, 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 paragraph (c) (231)(i)(B)(6)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(231) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(6) Rule 410.4, adopted on June 26, 1979 and amended on March 7,
1996.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-624 Filed 1-12-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P