[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 106 (Thursday, June 3, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 29790-29793]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13657]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 009-0130a; FRL-6331-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision; Kern County Air Pollution Control
District, Modoc County Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert
Air Quality Management District, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
District, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and
Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern rules
from the following seven districts: Kern County Air Pollution Control
District, Modoc County Air Pollution Control District, Mojave Desert
Air Quality Management District, Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air
[[Page 29791]]
Pollution Control District, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District, and Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District. These
revisions concern the adoption of various administrative and other
rules. This approval action will incorporate these rules into the
Federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rules is
to update and clarify the SIP in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is finalizing the
approval of these revisions into the California SIP under provisions of
the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national
primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan
requirements for nonattainment areas.
DATES: This rule is effective on August 2, 1999 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by July 6, 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 Andrew Steckel at the
Region IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's
evaluation report of each rule are available for public inspection at
EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the
submitted rule revisions are also 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 95812.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 ``M'' Street, Suite
302, Bakersfield, CA 93301-2370.
Modoc County Air Pollution Control District, 202 West Fourth Street,
Alturas, CA 96101-3915.
Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite
200, Victorville, CA 92392-2383.
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, 150 Matheson
Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448-4908.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999
Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, California, 93721, and
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian
Drive, Suite B23, Goleta, CA 93117.
Siskiyou County Air Pollution Control District, 525 South Foothill
Drive, Yreka, California, 96097-3036.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415)
744-1185.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The following is a list of the rules being approved into the
California SIP by District.
Kern County APCD--Rule 101, Title; Rule 112, Circumvention; Rule
113, Separation and Combination; Rule 114, Severability; and Rule 115,
Applicability of Emission Limits. These rules were adopted on May 2,
1996, submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on July 23, 1996, and found
complete on October 30, 1996.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The submitted rules were found to be complete pursuant to
EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51
Appendix V. EPA adopted the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Modoc County APCD--Rule 4.1-2, Uncombined Water; Rule 4.6,
Circumvention; Rule 4.6-1, Exception to Circumvention; and Rule 4.9,
Separation of Emissions. These rules were adopted on January 3, 1989,
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on December 31, 1990, and found
complete on July 7, 1990.
Mojave Desert AQMD--Rule 103, Description of the District
Boundaries was adopted on June 28, 1995, submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision on August 10, 1995, and found complete on October 4, 1995.
Northern Sonoma County APCD--Unnumbered rule, known as Appendix A;
Unnumbered rule, known as Appendix B; Unnumbered rule, formerly
Appendix C, now known as Appendix A; and Unnumbered rule, formerly
Appendix D, now known as Appendix B. These appendices were adopted on
February 22, 1984 and submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on October 16,
1985.
San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD--Rule 1010, Title and Rule 1130,
Severability were adopted on June 18, 1992, submitted to EPA as a SIP
revision on September 28, 1994, and found complete on March 30, 1995.
Santa Barbara County APCD--Rule 105, Applicability adopted on July
30, 1991, submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on October 25, 1991, and
found complete on December 18, 1991.
Siskiyou County APCD--Rule 4.10, Reduction of Animal Matter,
adopted on January 24, 1989, submitted to EPA as a revision to the SIP
on March 26, 1990, and found complete on February 28, 1991.
II. Background
The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA or the Act) requires the states to
develop state implementation plans to enable local districts to attain
and maintain national ambient air quality standards. Most of the rules
listed above do not directly affect emission reductions. They were
adopted, however, to help clarify the procedures and requirements of
local air pollution control programs.
III. EPA Evaluation and Action
In determining the approvability of each local rule, EPA must
evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and
EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and Part D of the CAA, and 40
CFR Part 51. The EPA interpretation of these requirements, which forms
the basis for this action, appears in various EPA policy guidance
documents; see, in particular, ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation
Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to Appendix D of
November 24, 1987 Federal Register document'' (Blue Book).
These rules involve the names and boundaries of the local
districts, prohibitions against circumvention of the rules, and
directions on severing sections of the rules that might be unlawful. A
more detailed description of the rules, the SIP modifications, and the
basis for EPA's approval can be found in the evaluation report for this
action.
EPA is publishing these rules without prior proposal because the
Agency views these as noncontroversial amendments 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 revision should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective August 2, 1999
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
July 6, 1999.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely
withdrawal 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
[[Page 29792]]
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
August 2, 1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed
rule.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Orders 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, 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. 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 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 and 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 and safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects 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. If the 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, 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 August 2, 1999. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by
[[Page 29793]]
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,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
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: March 22, 1999.
Alexis Strauss,
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)(164)(i)(B)(2), (179)(i)(E)(2), (182)(i)(F), (186)(i)(E),
(199)(i)(D)(4), (224)(i)(C)(2), (239)(i)(C), and (239)(i)(D)
introductory text to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(164) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Appendices A and B adopted on February 22, 1984.
* * * * *
(179) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) * * *
(2) Rule 4.10 adopted on January 24, 1989.
* * * * *
(182) * * *
(i) * * *
(F) Modoc County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rules 4.1-2, 4.6, 4.6-1, and 4.9 adopted on January 3, 1989.
* * * * *
(186) * * *
(i) * * *
(E) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 105 adopted on July 30, 1991.
* * * * *
(199) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) * * *
(4) Rule 1010 adopted on June 18, 1992 and Rule 1130 adopted on
June 18, 1992 and amended on December 17, 1992.
* * * * *
(224) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 103 amended on June 28, 1995.
* * * * *
(239) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rules 101, 112, 113, 114, and 115 amended on May 2, 1996.
(D) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-13657 Filed 6-2-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P