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

[CA 162-0109; FRL-6194-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan Revision, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval

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

proposed in the Federal Register on August 11, 1998. The revised rule

controls VOC emissions from sources coating metal parts and products in

the Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. EPA's final

action will incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. The

intended effect of finalizing this action 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). EPA is finalizing a

simultaneous limited approval and limited disapproval under CAA

provisions regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and general

rulemaking authority because this revision, while strengthening the

SIP, also does not meet fully the CAA provisions regarding plan

submissions and requirements for nonattainment areas. Because of this

limited disapproval, EPA will be required to impose highway funding or

emission offset sanctions under the CAA unless the State submits and

EPA approves corrections to the identified deficiencies within 18

months of the effective date of this disapproval. Moreover, EPA will be

required to promulgate a Federal implementation plan (FIP) unless the

deficiencies are corrected within 24 months of the effective date of

this disapproval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on January 4, 1999.

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,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460;

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and,

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,

(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

The rule being approved into the California SIP is Santa Barbara

County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Rule 330--Surface

Coating

[[Page 66759]]

of Metal Parts and Products. This rule was submitted by the California

Air Resource Board to EPA on October 13, 1995.

II. Background

On August 11, 1998 in 63 FR 42784, EPA proposed granting limited

approval and limited disapproval and including within the California

SIP Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District's (SBCAPCD)

Rule 330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. SBCAPCD revised

and adopted Rule 330 on April 21, 1995. The California Air Resource

Board submitted Rule 330 to EPA on October 13, 1995. This rule was

submitted 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 in accordance with

EPA guidance that interpreted the requirements of the pre-amendment

Act. A detailed discussion of the background for Rule 330 and

nonattainment areas is provided in the proposed rule cited above.

EPA evaluated Rule 330 for consistency with the requirements of the

CAA and EPA regulations and EPA's interpretation of these requirements

as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance documents referenced in

the proposed rule. EPA is finalizing the limited approval of Rule 330

to strengthen the SIP and finalizing the limited disapproval requiring

the correction of the remaining deficiencies. 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.

A detailed discussion of Rule 330's 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.

III. Response to Public Comments

A 30-day public comment period was provided in 63 FR 42784. EPA

received no comment letters on this August 11, 1998 proposal for a

limited approval and limited disapproval.

IV. EPA Action

EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of

SBCAPCD, Rule 330--Surface Coating of Metal Parts and Products. The

limited approval of this rule is finalized under section 110(k)(3)

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

necessary to further air quality by strengthening the SIP. EPA's

approval is limited in the sense that although Rule 330 strengthens the

SIP, it does not meet the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because

of the rule's deficiencies discussed in the proposed rule. Thus, to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is granting limited approval of Rule 330 under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. This action approves the Rule

330 into the SIP as a federally enforceable rule.

At the same time, EPA is finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule

330 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. As stated in

the proposed rule, upon the effective date of this final rule, the 18

month clock for sanctions and the 24 month FIP clock will begin. If the

State does not submit the required corrections and EPA does not approve

the submittal within 18 months of the effective date of the final rule,

either the highway sanction or the offset sanction will be imposed at

the 18 month mark. It should be noted that Rule 330 has been adopted by

the SBCAPCD and is in effect within the SBCAPCD. EPA's limited

disapproval action will not prevent the SBCAPCD, State of California,

or EPA from enforcing this rule.

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 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 and other representatives of

Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in

the development of regulatory policies on matters that

[[Page 66760]]

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 a 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 the 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 February 1, 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 compound.

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: November 18, 1998.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

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) (225)(i)(F) to

read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) * * *

(1) Rule 330, adopted on April 21, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 98-32004 Filed 12-2-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P