Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California,

[Federal Register: October 22, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 204)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 53340-53342]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr22oc01-6]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 245-0295; FRL-7078-7]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on July 6, 2001 and concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from the miscellaneous metal parts source category. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves a local rule regulating these emission sources and directs California to correct the rule's deficiencies.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744- 1226.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

1. Proposed Action

   On July 6, 2001 (66 FR 35573), EPA proposed a limited approval and limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4603 submitted by California for incorporation into the California SIP.

   Table 1.--Submitted Rule

   Local agency

   Rule #

   Rule title

   Adopted Submitted

   SJVUAPCD............................

   4603 Surface Coating of Metal Parts and 09/21/00 12/11/00 Products.

   We proposed a limited approval because we determined that Rule 4603 improves the SIP and is largely consistent with the relevant CAA requirements. Simultaneously, we proposed a limited disapproval because some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act.

   These provisions of Rule 4603 conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act and prevent full approval of the SIP revision.

   1. The language in section 4.1 allows at least two competing interpretations of the rule. This section should be revised to allow only one interpretation consistent with EPA guidance and policy concerning rule applicability, size cut-offs, and allowable non- compliant coating use. District practice of exempting fifteen pounds per day of non-compliant VOC emissions from all sources contradicts the intent of the size cutoff requirements of EPA's RACT Guidance. Furthermore, this practice is inconsistent with EPA policy providing for no more than 55 gallons of non-compliant coating use per rolling 12 month period.

   2. Rule 4603 sets a viscosity limit for dip coating of structural steel components. However, SJVUAPCD did not provide a test method for determining compliance with this viscosity limit.

   3. Rule 4603 incorporates a solid film lubricant specialty category emissions limit of 880 grams per liter (gr/l.) This limit exceeds the statutory and Control Technique Guideline (CTG) limit of 420 gr/l.

2. Public Comments and EPA Responses

   EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. During this period, we received no comments on our proposed limited approval and disapproval of Rule 4603.

3. EPA Action

   No comments were submitted that may have provoked reconsideration of our assessment of the rule as described in our July 6, 2001 proposed action. Therefore, EPA is finalizing a limited approval of the submitted rule as authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act. This action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of Rule 4603. As a result, sanctions will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule's deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule's deficiencies within 24 months. The San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District has adopted the submitted rule and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the SJVUAPCD from enforcing it.

4. Administrative Requirements

   1. Executive Order 12866

      The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory action

      [[Page 53341]]

      from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

   2. Executive Order 13211

      This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

   3. Executive Order 13045

      Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.

   4. Executive Order 13132

      Executive Order 13132, entitled 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, because it merely acts on 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.

   5. Executive Order 13175

      Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes.''

      This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

   6. 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 act on 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.

      EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, 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).

   7. 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 promulgated 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 acts on pre- existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new requirements. Accordingly, no

      [[Page 53342]]

      additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

   8. 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.

      EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.

1. 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).

   10. Petitions for Judicial Review

   Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filedin the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 21, 2001. 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: September 18, 2001. Jane Diamond, 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 paragraphs (c)(285)(i)(B) to read as follows:

      Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

      * * * * *

      (c) * * *

      (285) * * *

      (i) * * *

      (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

      (1) Rule 4603 adopted on April 11, 1991 and amended on September 21, 2000. * * * * *

      [FR Doc. 01-26528Filed10-19-01; 8:45 am]

      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P