[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 78 (Friday, April 23, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 19916-19919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-9996]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA126-0129a; FRL-6233-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Arizona and 
California; General Conformity Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves various revisions to State Implementation 
Plans (SIP) which contain regulations for implementing and enforcing 
the general conformity rules which the EPA promulgated on November 30, 
1993. EPA is approving SIP revisions which contain general conformity 
rules for the Arizona SIP and the California SIP for the following 
California Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD) and Air Quality 
Management Districts (AQMD): El Dorado County APCD, Great Basin Unified 
APCD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Santa 
Barbara County APCD, South Coast AQMD, Feather River AQMD, Placer 
County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, Imperial County APCD, Bay Area 
AQMD, San Diego County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Ventura County APCD, 
Mojave Desert AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD.
    The approval of these general conformity rules into the SIP will 
result in the SIP criteria and procedures governing general conformity 
determinations instead of the Federal rules at 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart 
B for those actions under the jurisdiction of the SIPs. Federal actions 
by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit 
Administration (under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act) are 
covered by the transportation conformity rules under 40 CFR Part 51, 
Subpart T-Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of 
Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or 
Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (and 40 CFR 
Part 93, Subpart A) and are not affected by this action.
    EPA approves these SIP revisions under sections 110(k) and 176(c) 
of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). A more detailed discussion of 
this action is provided below and in the support documentation.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 22, 1999 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 24, 1999. If EPA receives 
such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to: Doris Lo, Planning 
Office [AIR2], Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report are 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal 
business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions are also 
available for inspection at the following locations:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3033 North Central 
Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, P.O. Box 2815, 
Sacramento, California 95812
El Dorado County APCD, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, California 
95667
Great Basin Unified APCD, 157 Short Street, Suite #6, Bishop, 
California 93514
Monterey Bay Unified APCD, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey, 
California 93940
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, 
Fresno, California 93721
Santa Barbara County APCD, 26 Castillian Drive, B-23, Goleta, 
California 93117
South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 
91765-4182
Feather River AQMD, 463 Palora Avenue, Yuba City, California 95991-
4711
Placer County APCD, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, California 95603
Sacramento Metro AQMD, 8411 Jackson Road, Sacramento, California 
95826
Bay Area AQMD, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California 94109
Imperial County APCD, 150 South Ninth Street, El Centro, California 
92243-2850
San Diego County, APCD 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego, California 
92123-1096
Butte County AQMD, 9287 Midway, Suite 1A, Durham, California 95938
Ventura County APCD, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, California 
93003
Mojave Desert AQMD, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 200 Victorville, 
California 92392-2383

[[Page 19917]]

Yolo-Solano AQMD, 1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103, Davis, California 
95616

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Planning Office (AIR2), Air 
Division, U.S., Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Section 176(c) of the Act requires that all Federal actions conform 
to an applicable implementation plan. Conformity is defined in section 
176(c) of the Act as conformity to the SIP's purpose of eliminating or 
reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient 
Air Quality Standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such 
standards, and that such activities will not: (1) Cause or contribute 
to any new violation of any standard in any area, (2) increase the 
frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any 
area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required 
interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.
    As required by section 176(c) of the Act, EPA published the final 
general conformity rules implementing this statutory section on 
November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214), which are codified under 40 CFR part 
51 subpart W--Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to 
State or Federal Implementation Plans. Among other things, EPA's 
general conformity rules require the States and local air quality 
agencies (where applicable) to adopt and submit a general conformity 
SIP revision to EPA which are ``no less stringent than the 
requirements'' of Subpart W (40 CFR Part 51.851(b)). See also, 
Sec. 176(c)(4)(C).
    The governors of Arizona and California submitted SIP revisions in 
accordance with 40 CFR part 51, subpart W that contained general 
conformity rules for the following areas on the following dates 
summarized below.

Arizona Rule and Submittal Date

--Arizona Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 14, 
Conformity Determinations, 3/3/95

California District Rules and Submittal Dates

--El Dorado County APCD, Rule 502 General Conformity Rule, 11/30/94
--Great Basin Unified APCD, Reg XIII Conformity of General Federal 
Actions to SIPs, 11/30/94
--Monterey Bay Unified APCD, (Appendix G) General Conformity, 11/30/94
--San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Rule 9110 General Conformity, 11/30/
94
--Santa Barbara County APCD, Rule 702 General Conformity, 11/30/94
--South Coast AQMD, Rule 1901 General Conformity, 11/30/94
--Feather River AQMD, Rule 10.4 General Conformity, 12/22/94
--Placer County APCD, Rule 508 General Conformity, 12/22/94
--Sacramento Metro AQMD, Rule 104 General Conformity, 12/22/94
--Bay Area AQMD, Federal General Conformity Regulation, 12/28/94
--Imperial County APCD, Rule 925 General Conformity, 2/24/95
--San Diego County APCD, Rule 1501 General Conformity, 5/24/95
--Butte County AQMD, Rule 1103 General Conformity, 5/25/95
--Ventura County APCD, Rule 220 General Conformity, 8/10/95
--Mojave Desert AQMD, Rule 2002-General Federal Actions Conformity, 5/
10/96
--Yolo-Solano AQMD, Rule 10.3 General Conformity, 12/3/98

II. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

    EPA compared each of the submitted rules to the Federally 
promulgated rule at 40 CFR part 51. EPA believes that all of the 
submitted SIP revisions are consistent with 40 CFR 51.851(b) and are no 
less stringent than the Federal rule. EPA is thus approving the above 
rules into the SIP under 110(k) and 176(c) of the CAA. A more detailed 
discussion of EPA's evaluation can be found in the Support 
Documentation available at the EPA Region 9 Office.
    EPA is publishing these rules without prior proposal because the 
EPA views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revisions should 
adverse comments be filed. These rules will be effective June 22, 1999 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
May 24, 1999.
    If the EPA receives any adverse comments, then EPA will publish a 
timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register 
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment 
period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule 
should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public 
is advised that this rule will be effective on June 22, 1999 and no 
further action will be taken on the proposed 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 shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

III. 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 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.

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

[[Page 19918]]

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 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.

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 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 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.

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 June 22, 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, Carbon Monoxide, 
General conformity, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 
matter, Volatile organic compound.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of California and the State of Arizona was 
approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: January 29, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    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 D--Arizona

    2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(92) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (92) Plan revisions were submitted on March 3, 1995, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (A) Arizona State Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 
14, adopted on December 23, 1994.
* * * * *

[[Page 19919]]

Subpart F--California

    3. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(205) 
introductory text, (c)(205)(i) introductory text, (c)(205)(i)(B)(2), 
(c)(207)(i)(B)(5), (c)(207)(i)(E)(2), (c)(207)(i)(F), (c)(207)(i)(G), 
(c)(207)(i)(H), (c)(207)(i)(I), (c)(210)(i)(F), (c)(210)(i)(G), 
(c)(210)(i)(H), (c)(215)(i)(E), (c)(220)(i)(D), (c)(221)(i)(B), 
(c)(224)(i)(B)(2), (c)(231)(i)(C) and (c)(259) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (205) New and amended plans for the following APCDs were submitted 
on December 28, 1994, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
* * * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Federal General Conformity Regulation, adopted on September 7, 
1994.
* * * * *
    (207) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (5) Rule 502, adopted on November 8, 1994.
* * * * *
    (E) * * *
    (2) Appendix G General Conformity, adopted on October 19, 1994.
    (F) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Regulation XIII, adopted on October 5, 1994.
    (G) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 9110, adopted on October 20, 1994.
    (H) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 702, adopted on October 20, 1994.
    (I) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1901, adopted on September 9, 1994.
* * * * *
    (210) * * *
    (i) * *  *
    (F) Feather River Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 10.4, adopted on November 7, 1994.
    (G) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 508, adopted on November 3, 1994.
    (H) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 104, adopted on November 3, 1994.
* * * * *
    (215) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (E) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 925, adopted on November 29, 1994.
* * * * *
    (220) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 1501, adopted on March 7, 1995.
* * * * *
    (221) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) Butte County Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 1103, adopted on February 16, 1995.
* * * * *
    (224) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 220, adopted on May 9, 1995.
* * * * *
    (231) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 2002, adopted on October 26, 1994.
* * * * *
    (259) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on December 3, 1998, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 10.3, adopted on February 8, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-9996 Filed 4-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P