[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 16 (Tuesday, January 26, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3850-3852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1647]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 102-0120; FRL-6220-2a]


Final Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; 
California State Implementation Plan Revision, Bay Area Air Quality 
Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in 
the Federal Register on November 6, 1998. This limited approval and 
limited disapproval action will incorporate portions of Rules 1, 2 and 
4 of Regulation 2--Permits, for the Bay Area Air Quality Management 
District (BAAQMD or the ``District'') into the federally approved State 
Implementation Plan (SIP).
    The intended effect of finalizing this limited approval and limited 
disapproval of these rules is to strengthen the federally approved SIP 
by incorporating these updated provisions and to satisfy Federal 
requirements for an approvable nonattainment area NSR SIP for the 
District.
    Thus, EPA is finalizing simultaneous limited approval and limited 
disapproval as a revision into the California SIP under provisions of 
the Act regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, and general rulemaking 
authority. While strengthening the SIP, this revision contains 
deficiencies which the BAAQMD must address before EPA can grant full 
approval under Section 110(k)(3).

DATES: This action is effective on February 25, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing the final action are available for 
public inspection (Docket Number CA102-0120) at EPA's Region IX office 
during normal business hours and at the following locations:

Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94109.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Walser, Permits Office [AIR-3], 
Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 744-
1257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The following rules are being approved for limited approval and 
limited disapproval into the California SIP: District Regulation 2 
Permits, Rule 1 General Requirements, Rule 2 New Source Review, and 
Rule 4 Emissions Banking. Rules 2 and 4 were submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board on behalf of the District to EPA on 
September 28, 1994. Rule 1 was submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board on behalf of the District to EPA on December 31, 1990.

II. Background

    On November 6, 1998, in 63 FR 59924, EPA proposed limited approval 
and limited disapproval for BAAQMD Regulation 2 Permits, Rules 1, 2 and 
4. The BAAQMD adopted Rule 1 on November 1, 1989, and Rules 2 and 4 on 
June 15, 1994. Submitted Rule 1 was found to be complete on February 
28, 1991, and submitted Rules 2 and 4 were found to be complete on 
November 22, 1994,1 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria 
that are set forth in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V.2 These 
rules were proposed for limited approval and limited disapproval. A 
detailed discussion of the background for these rules and EPA's 
evaluation is provided in the November 6, 1998 Proposed Rulemaking 
Notice (NPRM) cited above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The proposed action on November 6, 1998 mistakenly 
identified the submittal and completeness date for Rule 1 as the 
same date as Rules 2 and 4.
    \2\ 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Response to Comments

    A 30 day public comment period was provided in 63 FR 59924. EPA 
received one public comment on the proposal from the California Council 
for Environmental and Economic Balance (CCEEB), and is responding to 
that comment in this document.
    CCEEB commented that EPA should specifically exclude Section 2-4-
304.3 of Regulation 2, Rule 4 from any final SIP approval of all or 
portions of Rule 4. Section 2-4-304.3 of Rule 4 states that ``emission 
reduction credits may not be used to exempt a source from any other air 
pollution control requirements whatsoever of federal, State, or 
District laws, rules and regulations.'' CCEEB is concerned that Section 
2-4-304.3 addresses State law issues, and is not necessary to meet 
Federal Clean Air Act requirements. In addition, CEEB commented that 
the California Health and Safety Code Section 39602 provides that the 
California SIP ``shall include only those provisions necessary to meet 
the requirements of the Clean Air Act.''
    Section 2-4-304.3 was not a section of Regulation 2, Rule 4 that 
EPA identified as a SIP-approvability issue in 63 FR 59924. As written, 
Section 2-4-304.3 of Rule 4 is not inconsistent with federal 
requirements or EPA policy and does not present any SIP-approvability 
issues. If CCEEB believes the language is inconsistent with state law, 
its remedy is at the state and local level. The District, if in 
agreement with CCEEB, would need to revise the rule and submit the rule 
modification to the California Air Resources Board as a SIP submittal. 
EPA does not have the authority to revise the rule language as 
requested, or exclude Section 2-4-304.3 from final SIP approval.

IV. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

    BAAQMD Regulation 2 clarifies the terms and requirements that apply 
to the District's NSR regulation and emissions banking program. BAAQMD 
Regulation 2 was originally adopted as part of BAAQMD's effort to 
achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. 
For EPA's detailed evaluation of BAAQMD Regulation 2, Rules 1, 2 and 4, 
please refer to the NPRM at 63 FR 59924, November 6, 1998.
    EPA has evaluated District Rules 1, 2 and 4 of Regulation 2 and has 
determined that the rules contain

[[Page 3851]]

deficiencies and are not fully consistent with CAA requirements, EPA 
regulations and EPA policy. Because these rule deficiencies are 
inappropriate for inclusion in the SIP, EPA cannot grant full approval 
of these rules under section 110(k)(3). Also, because the submitted 
rules are 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 is granting final limited 
approval of the submitted rules 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 final 
approval is limited because EPA's action also contains a simultaneous 
limited disapproval. In order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is finalizing 
limited approval of BAAQMD's submitted Regulation 2 under sections 
110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
    It should be noted that the rules covered by this final rulemaking 
have been adopted by the BAAQMD, subsequently revised, and are 
currently in effect in the BAAQMD. EPA's final limited disapproval 
action does not prevent the BAAQMD or EPA from enforcing these rules.
    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 shall 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. Docket

    Copies of Bay Area's submittal and other information relied upon 
for the final actions are contained in docket number CA102-0120 
maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise 
considered by, EPA in the development of this final rulemaking. The 
docket is available for public inspection at the location listed under 
the ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. 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.

C. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 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, 
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget 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, Executive Order 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.

D. 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.

E. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials 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.

F. 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 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).

G. Unfunded Mandates

    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

[[Page 3852]]

(``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 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.

H. 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).

I. 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 29, 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, Nitrogen 
dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: January 4, 1999.
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 paragraphs (c)(182)(i)(B)(6) 
and (c)(199)(i)(A)(8) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of Plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (182) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (6) Regulation 2, Rule 1 adopted on November 1, 1989.
* * * * *
    (199) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (8) Regulation 2, Rule 2 and Rule 4 adopted on June 15, 1994.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-1647 Filed 1-25-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P