[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2573-2575]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-892]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 207-0121; FRL-6214-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, 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 a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
proposed in the Federal Register on August 7, 1998. This 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) in accordance with the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The rule 
controls VOC emissions from a variety of sources. Thus, 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 maintaining the SIP, 
also does not fully meet the CAA provisions regarding plan submissions 
and requirements for nonattainment areas. As a result 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 a correction to the identified deficiency within 18 months of 
the effective date of this disapproval. Moreover, EPA will be required 
to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) unless the deficiency 
is corrected within 24 months of the effective date of this 
disapproval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on February 16, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report of the rule 
are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during 
normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule 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
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 
Tuolumne Street, Suite #200, Fresno, CA 93721

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office, (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rule being approved into the California SIP is San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) Rule 4661, 
Organic Solvents. This rule was submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on March 10, 1998. Eighteen rules from 
the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin's eight counties are being replaced by 
SJVUAPCD Rule 4661 and are being rescinded from their respective SIPs 
with this action. A detailed list of the rules being rescinded from the 
county SIPs can be found in the Technical Support Document (TSD) for 
Rule 4661 (dated July 1, 1998), which is available from the U.S. EPA, 
Region IX office.

II. Background

    On August 7, 1998 in 63 FR 42308, EPA proposed granting limited 
approval and limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 4661, Organic 
Solvents into the California SIP. Rule 4661 was adopted by SJVUAPCD on 
December 17, 1992. This rule was submitted by the CARB to EPA on March 
10, 1998. This rule was submitted in response to EPA's 1988 SIP Call 
and the CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) requirement. A detailed discussion of 
the background for the above rule and nonattainment area is provided in 
the proposed rule cited above.
    EPA has evaluated the above rule for consistency with the 
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA's interpretation of 
these requirements as expressed in the EPA policy guidance document 
referenced in the proposed rule. EPA is finalizing the limited approval 
of this rule in order to provide a uniform set of requirements for the 
entire San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, maintain the SIP, and alleviate 
problems associated with the listing of all applicable requirements in 
Title V source permits. EPA is also finalizing the limited disapproval 
of this rule and requiring the correction of the remaining deficiency. 
Section 4.2 of Rule 4661 states that Rule 4661 shall not apply to any 
source which is in full compliance with the provisions of other 
applicable rules in Regulation IV (Prohibitions). This exemption does 
not specify that it applies only in situations where sources are in 
compliance with other SIP-approved rules. Because of this deficiency, 
the rule is not fully approvable pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(A) of 
the CAA because it is not consistent with the interpretation of Section 
172 of the 1977 CAA as found in the Blue Book and may lead to 
compliance problems. A detailed

[[Page 2574]]

discussion of the rule provisions and evaluation has been provided in 
the proposed rule and in the TSD available at EPA's Region IX office.

III. Response to Public Comments

    A 30-day public comment period was provided in 63 FR 42308. EPA 
received no comment letters on the proposed rule.

IV. EPA Action

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of 
the above-referenced rule. The limited approval of this rule is being 
finalized 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 maintaining the SIP. The approval is limited in the sense that the 
rule maintains the SIP but contains a deficiency, as discussed in the 
proposed rule, that does not meet the section 110(a)(2)(A) CAA 
requirement. Thus, in order to maintain the SIP, EPA is granting 
limited approval of this rule under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of 
the CAA. This action approves the rule into the SIP as a federally 
enforceable rule.
    At the same time, EPA is finalizing the limited disapproval of this 
rule because it contains a deficiency that has not been corrected as 
required by section 110(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. 
Sections 179(a) and 110(c). If the State does not submit the required 
correction 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 the rule covered by this final rule has been adopted by the 
SJVUAPCD and is currently in effect. EPA's limited disapproval action 
will not prevent SJVUAPCD 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 to 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 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

[[Page 2575]]

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 March 16, 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: December 18, 1998.
Laura Yoshii,
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 paragraph (c) (254)(i)(A)(4) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (254) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (4) Rule 4661, adopted on December 17, 1992.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-892 Filed 1-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P