Jump to main content.

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

Related Material

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 


[Federal Register: August 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 154)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 42784-42786]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11au98-35]

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

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

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.