Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; Interim Final Determination That State Has Corrected the Deficiencies

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 144-5-7100c; FRL-5256-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision; Interim Final Determination That

State Has Corrected the Deficiencies

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Interim final determination.

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

SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA published a direct

final rule fully approving revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern South Coast Air

Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) Rules 1106, 1107, 1115 and 1171

and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District's (SBAPCD)

Rules 323 and 339. On that date, EPA also published a proposed

rulemaking to provide the public with an opportunity to comment on

EPA's action. If a person submits adverse comments on EPA's proposed

action within 30 days of publication of the proposed and direct final

actions, EPA will withdraw its direct final action and will consider

any comments received before taking final action on the State's

submittal. Based on the proposed full approval, EPA is making an

interim final determination by this action that the State has corrected

the deficiency for which a sanctions clock began on January 20, 1994.

This action will defer the application of the offset sanction and defer

the application of the highway sanction. Although this action is

effective upon publication, EPA will take comment. If no comments are

received on EPA's proposed approval of the State's submittal, the

direct final action published in today's Federal Register will also

finalize EPA's determination that the State has

[[Page 36226]]

corrected the deficiency that started the sanctions clock. If comments

are received on EPA's proposed approval and this interim final action,

EPA will publish a final notice taking into consideration any comments

received.

DATES: This interim final determination is effective on July 14, 1995.

Comments must be received by August 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking

Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

The state submittal and EPA's analysis for that submittal, which

are the basis for this action, are available for public review at the

above address and at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102) 401 ``M'' Street,

S.W., Washington 20460

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812-2815

South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4812

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian

Drive B-23, Goleta, CA 93117

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel A. Meer, Rulemaking Section (A-

5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone:

(415) 744-1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On May 13, 1993, the State submitted SCAQMD's Rule 1106, Marine

Coating Operations and Rule 1107, Coating of Metal Parts and Products;

on June 19, 1992 the State submitted SCAQMD's Rule 1171, Solvent

Cleaning Operations and SBAPCD's Rule 339, Motor Vehicle and Mobile

Equipment Coating Operations; on December 31, 1990 the State submitted

SBCAPCD's Rule 323, Architectural Coatings and on September 14, 1992

the State submitted SCAQMD's Rule 1115, Motor Vehicle Assembly Line

Coating Operations. EPA published a limited disapproval for these rules

in the Federal Register on December 20, 1993; 58 FR 66282 and 58 FR

66285 respectively. EPA's disapproval action started an 18-month clock

for the application of one sanction (followed by a second sanction 6

months later) under section 179 of the Clean Air Act (Act) and a 24-

month clock for promulgation of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)

under section 110(c) of the Act. The State subsequently submitted a

revised SCAQMD Rule 1106 on February 24, 1995, a revised SBAPCD Rule

339 on April 13, 1995, a revised SBAPCD Rule 323 on May 24, 1995 and

SCAQMD Rules 1107, 1115 and 1171 on June 16, 1995. EPA has taken direct

final action on these submittals pursuant to its modified direct final

policy set forth at 59 FR 24054 (May 10, 1994). In the Rules section of

today's Federal Register, EPA issued a direct final full approval of

the State of California's submittal of SCAQMD's Rule 1106, Marine

Coating Operations; SCAQMD's Rule 1107, Coating of Metal Parts and

Products; SCAQMD's Rule 1115, Motor Vehicle Assembly Line Coating

Operations; SCAQMD's Rule 1171, Solvent Cleaning Operations and

SBAPCD's Rule 323, Architectural Coatings and SBAPCD's Rule 339, Motor

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating Operations. In addition, in the

Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA proposed full

approval of the State's submittal.

Based on the proposed and direct final approval, EPA believes that

it is more likely than not that the State has corrected the original

disapproval deficiency. Therefore, EPA is taking this final rulemaking

action, effective on publication, finding that the State has corrected

the deficiency. However, EPA is also providing the public with an

opportunity to comment on this final action. If, based on any comments

on this action and any comments on EPA's proposed full approval of the

State's submittal, EPA determines that the State's submittal is not

fully approvable and this final action was inappropriate, EPA will

either propose or take final action finding that the State has not

corrected the original disapproval deficiency. As appropriate, EPA will

also issue an interim final determination or a final determination that

the deficiency has not been corrected. Until EPA takes such an action,

the application of sanctions will continue to be deferred and/or

stayed.

This action does not stop the sanctions clock that started for

these areas on January 20, 1993. However, this action will defer the

application of the offsets sanction and will defer the application of

the highway sanction. See 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994). If EPA's direct

final action fully approving the State's submittal becomes effective,

such action will permanently stop the sanctions clock and will

permanently lift any applied, stayed or deferred sanctions. If EPA must

withdraw the direct final action based on adverse comments and EPA

subsequently determines that the State, in fact, did not correct the

disapproval deficiency, EPA will also determine that the State did not

correct the deficiency and the sanctions consequences described in the

sanctions rule will apply. See 59 FR 39832, to be codified at 40 CFR

52.31.

II. EPA Action

EPA is taking interim final action finding that the State has

corrected the disapproval deficiency that started the sanctions clock.

Based on this action, application of the offset sanction will be

deferred and application of the highway sanction will be deferred until

EPA's direct final action fully approving the State's submittal becomes

effective or until EPA takes action proposing or finally disapproving

in whole or part the State submittal. If EPA's direct final action

fully approving the State submittal becomes effective, at that time any

sanctions clocks will be permanently stopped and any applied, stayed or

deferred sanctions will be permanently lifted.

Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has an

approvable plan, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as

possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for

comment before this action takes effect.1 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). EPA

believes that notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date

of this action is impracticable and contrary to the public interest.

EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and, through its proposed and

direct final action is indicating that it is more likely than not that

the State has corrected the deficiency that started the sanctions

clock. Therefore, it is not in the public interest to initially impose

sanctions or to keep applied sanctions in place when the State has most

likely done all that it can to correct the deficiency that triggered

the sanctions clock. Moreover, it would be impracticable to go through

notice-and comment rulemaking on a finding that the State has corrected

the deficiency prior to the rulemaking approving the State's submittal.

Therefore, EPA believes that it is necessary to use the interim final

rulemaking process to temporarily stay or defer sanctions while EPA

completes its rulemaking process on the approvability of the State's

submittal. Moreover, with respect to the effective date of this

[[Page 36227]]

action, EPA is invoking the good cause exception to the 30-day notice

requirement of the APA because the purpose of this notice is to relieve

a restriction. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1).

\1\ As previously noted, however, by this action EPA is

providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination

after the effective date and EPA will consider any comments received

in determining whether to reverse such action.

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

Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform

Act of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22,

1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with the

proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to

State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.

Through submission of this state implementation plan or plan

revision, the state and any affected local or tribal governments have

elected to adopt the program provided for under Part D of the Clean Air

Act. These rules may bind State, local and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require the private sector to perform

certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by this

action will impose no new requirements; such sources are already

subject to these regulations under State law. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the

private sector, result from this action. EPA has also determined that

this final action does not include a mandate that may result in

estimated costs of $100 million or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the private sector.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this action

from review under Executive Order 12866.

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 economic 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.

This action temporarily relieves sources of an additional burden

potentially placed on them by the sanctions provisions of the Act.

Therefore, I certify that it does not have an impact on any small

entities.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental regulations, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.

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

Dated: June 27, 1995.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95-17267 Filed 7-13-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-W