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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA162-0089; FRL-6141-4]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of

a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning

the control of volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from sources

coating metal parts and products in the Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District. The intended effect of proposing a limited

approval and limited disapproval of this rule is to regulate emissions

of VOCs in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA's final action on this proposed

rule will incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. EPA

has evaluated the rule and is proposing a simultaneous limited approval

and limited disapproval under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority because this

revision, while strengthening the SIP, also does not fully meet the CAA

provisions regarding plan submissions and requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 10, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office

[AIR-4], Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

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,

[[Page 42785]]

[AIR-4], Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Telephone: (415) 744-

1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for approval into the California SIP is

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Rule

330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. This rule was

submitted by the California Air Resource Board to EPA on October 13,

1995.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment

areas under the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act (1977 CAA or pre-

amended Act) that included Santa Barbara County (see 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR

81.305.) Santa Barbara County did not attain the ozone standard by the

approved attainment date. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of

California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act,

that the Santa Barbara County portion of the SIP was inadequate to

attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies

in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). On November 15,

1990, amendments to the 1977 CAA were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104

Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. In amended section

182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, Congress adopted statutorily the requirement

that nonattainment areas fix their deficient reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules for ozone and established a deadline of

May 15, 1991 for states to submit corrections of those deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas designated as nonattainment

prior to enactment of the amendments and classified as marginal or

above as of the date of enactment. It requires such areas to adopt and

correct RACT rules pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b) as

interpreted in pre-amendment guidance.1 EPA's SIP-Call used

that guidance to indicate the necessary corrections for specific

nonattainment areas. Initially, Santa Barbara County was classified as

moderate; 2 therefore, this area is subject to the RACT fix-

up requirement and the May 15, 1991 deadline. Santa Barbara County has

since been reclassified as a serious ozone nonattainment area.

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

\1\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of

those portions of the proposed Post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide

policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues

Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,

Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the

Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control

technique guidelines (CTGs).

\2\ In 1990, Santa Barbara County retained its designation and

was classified by operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and

181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See 56 FR 56694

(November 6, 1991). In 1997, Santa Barbara County was reclassified

as a serious ozone nonattainment area. See 62 FR 65025, (December

17, 1997).

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

The State of California submitted many revised RACT rules to EPA

for incorporation into its SIP on October 13, 1995, including the rule

being acted on in this document. This document addresses EPA's proposed

action for SBCAPCD Rule 330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and

Products. SBCAPCD revised and adopted Rule 330 on April 21, 1995. EPA

found this rule complete on November 28, 1995 pursuant to EPA's

completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix

V.3 EPA is proposing limited approval and limited

disapproval of this version of Rule 330.

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

\3\ EPA adopted completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55

FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised

the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

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

Rule 330 controls the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

from industrial sites coating a variety of metal parts and products.

VOCs contribute to the production of ground level ozone and smog.

SBCAPCD--Rule 330 was adopted originally as part of SBCAPCD's effort to

achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and

has been revised in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section

182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. EPA's evaluation and proposed action for

SBCAPCD--Rule 330 follow below.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a VOC rule, EPA must evaluate

the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR

part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today's action, appears in the various EPA

policy guidance documents listed in footnote one. Among those

provisions is the requirement that a VOC rule must, at a minimum,

provide for the implementation of RACT for stationary sources of VOC

emissions. This requirement was carried forth from the pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing

RACT rules, EPA prepared a series of Control Technique Guideline (CTG)

documents which specify the minimum requirements that a rule must

contain in order to be approved into the SIP. The CTGs are based on the

underlying requirements of the Act and specify the presumptive norms

for what is RACT for specific source categories. Under the CAA,

Congress ratified EPA's use of these documents, as well as other Agency

policy, for requiring States to ``fix-up'' their RACT rules. See

section 182(a)(2)(A). The CTG applicable to SBCAPCD--Rule 330, Surface

Coating of Metal Parts and Products is entitled, ``Surface Coating

(Volume VI--Surface Coating of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products),'' EPA document # EPA-450/2-78-015. Further interpretations

of EPA policy are found in the Blue Book. In general, these guidance

documents have been set forth to ensure that VOC rules are fully

enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.

On May 5, 1982, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 330--

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products that has been adopted by

SBCAPCD on June 11, 1979. The October 15, 1995 submitted Rule 330

includes the following significant changes from the current SIP version

of the rule:

--new and added definitions;

--new emission limits for baked coatings at new facilities;

--capture and control efficiency requirements;

--application equipment requirements;

--closed container requirements;

--labeling requirements;

--record keeping requirements; and,

--test method requirements.

EPA has evaluated SBCAPCD's submitted Rule 330 for consistency with

the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the

revisions address and correct many deficiencies previously identified

by EPA. These corrected deficiencies have resulted in a clearer, more

enforceable rule.

Although SBCAPCD's submitted Rule 330 will strengthen the SIP, the

rule still contains deficiencies which were required to be corrected

pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement of Part D of the CAA.

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.

[[Page 42786]]

A detailed discussion of rule 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. Given these deficiencies, the Rule 330

is not approvable pursuant to the section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA

because it is inconsistent with the interpretation of section 172 of

the 1977 CAA as found in the Blue Book and may lead to rule

enforceability problems.

Because of the above deficiencies, EPA cannot grant full approval

of this rule under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the

submitted rule is not composed of separable parts which meet all the

applicable requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval

of the rule under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited

approval of the submitted rule under section 110(k)(3) in light of

EPA's authority pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations

necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval

is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited

disapproval. To strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited approval

of Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District's Rule 330--

Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products under sections 110(k)(3)

and 301(a) of the CAA.

At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of

this rule 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. Under

section 179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under

section 110(k) for an area designated nonattainment based on the

submission's failure to meet one or more of the elements required by

the Act, the Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in

section 179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18

months of such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions

available to the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18-

month period referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective

date of EPA's final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final

disapproval triggers the Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement

under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rule covered by this

NPR has been adopted by the SBCAPCD is in effect in the Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District. EPA's final limited disapproval

action will not prevent the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control

District, the state of California, or EPA from enforcing this rule.

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 will be considered separately in light of

specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in relation

to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

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

regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.

The proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled

``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically significant'' action under

E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 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.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D

of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve

requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify

that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship

under the CAA, 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 action 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).

C. 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

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 proposed does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 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

Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,

or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this

action.

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.

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

Dated: July 31, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 98-21519 Filed 8-10-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P