Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Kern County Air Pollution Control District

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