[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