[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 184 (Thursday, September 23, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 51489-51493]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-24843]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 179-0178; FRL-6442-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
rules submitted to EPA as revisions to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of particulate 
matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust sources in the San Joaquin 
Valley.
    The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited 
disapproval of these rules is to regulate PM-10 emissions in accordance 
with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or 
the Act). EPA's final action on this proposed rule will incorporate 
these rules into the federally approved SIP. EPA has evaluated the 
rules and is proposing this action under provisions of the CAA 
regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority 
because these revisions, while strengthening the SIP, also do not fully 
meet the CAA provisions regarding plan submissions and requirements for 
nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office 
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report of the rules are 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal 
business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are also available for 
inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 
Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, CA 93726

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4, 
Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Telephone: (415) 744-
1903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being proposed for incorporation into the California SIP 
include the following San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD) Regulation VIII rules: Rule 8010, Fugitive Dust 
Administrative Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM-
10); Rule 8020, Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine 
Particulate Matter (PM-10) from Construction, Demolition, Excavation, 
Extraction Activities; Rule 8030, Fugitive Dust Requirements for 
Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10) from Handling and Storage of 
Bulk Materials; Rule 8040, Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of 
Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10) from Landfill Disposal Sites; Rule 
8060, Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter 
(PM-10) from Paved and Unpaved Roads and; Rule 8070, Fugitive Dust 
Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10) from 
Vehicle and/or Equipment Parking, Shipping, Receiving, Transfer, 
Fueling, and Service Areas. These rules were submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on July 23, 1996.

II. Background

    On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of total suspended 
particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas under the provisions of the 1977 
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, that included the San Joaquin Valley 
Air Basin (43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305). On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672) 
EPA replaced the TSP standards with new PM standards applying only to 
PM up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10).1 On November 15, 
1990, amendments to the CAA were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat. 
2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. On the date of enactment of the 
1990 CAA Amendments, PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 
107(d)(4)(B) of the Act, including the San Joaquin Valley Air 
Basin,2 were designated nonattainment by operation of law 
and classified as moderate pursuant to section 188(a). Under section 
189(a) of the CAA, moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must implement by 
December 10, 1993 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) rules 
for PM-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 18, 1997 EPA promulgated revised and new standards 
for PM-10 and PM-2.5 (62 FR 38651). The U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the D.C. Circuit in American Trucking Assoc., Inc., et al. v. USEPA, 
No. 97-1440 (May 14, 1999) issued an opinion that, among other 
things, vacated the new standards for PM-10 that were published on 
July 18, 1997 and became effective September 16, 1997. However, the 
PM-10 standards promulgated on July 1, 1987 were not an issue in 
this litigation, and the Court's decision does not affect the 
applicability of those standards in this area. Codification of those 
standards continue to be recorded at 40 CFR 50.6. In the notice 
promulgating the new PM-10 standards, the EPA Administrator decided 
that the previous PM-10 standards that were promulgated on July 1, 
1987, and provisions associated with them, would continue to apply 
in areas subject to the 1987 PM-10 standards until certain 
conditions specified in 40 CFR 50.6(d) are met. See 62 FR at 38701. 
EPA has not taken any action under 40 CFR 50.6(d) for this area. 
Today's proposed action relates only to the CAA requirements 
concerning the PM-10 standards as originally promulgated in 1987.
    \2\ San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of 
the SJVUAPCD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 8, 1993, EPA reclassified five moderate nonattainment 
areas, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, to serious 
nonattainment pursuant to section 188(b)(58 FR 3334). Section 189(b) 
requires serious nonattainment areas to implement Best Available 
Control Measures (BACM) by February 8, 1997, four years after 
reclassification.3
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Because the statutory RACM and BACM implementation deadlines 
have passed, RACM and BACM must be implemented ``as soon as 
possible.'' Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA 
has interpreted this requirement to be ``as soon as practicable.'' 
55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9, 1990). States are required to 
develop RACM and BACM that address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10 
standards. Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 308-311 (9th Cir. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to section 110(a) and part D of the Act, local 
California air pollution control districts have adopted and the State 
of California has submitted many PM-10 rules to EPA for incorporation 
into the California SIP on July 23, 1996, including the rules 
referenced above that are proposed for action in this document. These 
rules were adopted by the SJVUAPCD on April 25, 1996 and were found to 
be

[[Page 51490]]

complete on October 30, 1996 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria 
that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.4 Rule 
8010, Rule 8020, Rule 8030, Rule 8040, Rule 8060 and Rule 8070 control 
particulate emissions from fugitive dust sources and are being proposed 
for limited approval and limited disapproval. These rules were adopted 
and submitted to EPA as part of SJVUAPCD's efforts to meet the RACM 
requirements of CAA 189(a) for moderate PM-10 nonattainment 
areas.5 PM-10 emissions can harm human health and the 
environment. The following is EPA's evaluation of and proposed action 
on the rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 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).
    \5\ See, e.g., Memorandum from David L. Crow, Executive 
Director/APCO, to SJVUAPCD Governing Board, dated April 25, 1996. 
This document was an enclosure in the submittal of the rules that 
are the subject of this proposed action. See also letter from 
Michael H. Scheible, CARB, to Felicia Marcus, EPA, dated July 23, 
1996; Rule 8010, section 1.0: ``The Rules in this Regulation [VIII] 
have been developed pursuant to United States Environmental 
Protection Agency guidance for Moderate Nonattainment Areas.'' 
Emphasis added.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

    In determining the approvability of a PM-10 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 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). EPA must also ensure that rules are enforceable 
and strengthen or maintain the SIP's control strategy.
    Finally, in order for EPA to approve the SIP revision, EPA must 
determine that the SIP submittal complies with CAA section 110(l). 
Section 110(l) states that the ``Administrator shall not approve a 
revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * * 
or any other applicable requirement of (the Clean Air) Act.''
    The statutory provisions relating to RACM and BACM are found in CAA 
section 189(a) and (b) and are discussed in EPA's ``General Preamble,'' 
which gives the Agency's preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on 
SIPs submitted under Title I of the CAA. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 
1992), 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992), and 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994). 
In this proposed action, EPA is applying these policies to this 
submittal, taking into consideration the specific factual issues 
presented.
    For moderate PM-10 areas reclassified as serious, the nonattainment 
control requirements (i.e., RACM) are carried over and elevated to a 
higher level of stringency (i.e., BACM). 59 FR 42009. Thus, generally, 
if a control measure meets the statutory requirements for BACM, it will 
also meet those for RACM.6 Moreover, since these fugitive 
dust rules were adopted, the area has been reclassified to serious and 
the BACM implementation deadline has passed. The reader should consult 
the General Preamble documents for detailed discussions of both the 
RACM and BACM requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The General Preamble suggests as the starting point for 
specifying RACM for fugitive dust sources, the list of available 
control measures in appendix C1 and those put forth during the 
public period. 57 FR 13540, 18073. If it can be shown that a 
particular measure is unreasonable because emissions from affected 
sources are de minimis, it may be excluded from further 
consideration. The remaining available measures are then evaluated 
for reasonableness, considering their technological feasibility and 
the cost of control in the area. 57 FR 13540.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA defines BACM as ``the maximum degree of emissions reduction of 
PM-10 and PM-10 precursors from a source * * * which is determined on a 
case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and 
economic impacts and other costs, to be achievable for such source 
through application of production processes and available methods, 
systems, and techniques for control of each such pollutant.'' 59 FR 
42010. EPA exempts from the BACM requirement de minimis source 
categories, which do not contribute significantly to nonattainment. 59 
FR 42011.
    For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing 
RACM and BACM rules, EPA has prepared a series of guidance documents on 
PM-10 source categories (See CAA section 190). The technical guidance 
document applicable to Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060 and 8070 is 
entitled ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information 
Document for Best Available Control Measures' (EPA-450/2-92-004).
    There are currently no versions of SJVUAPCD Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 
8040, 8060 and 8070 in the SIP. Earlier versions of these rules were 
adopted on October 21, 1993 and September 14, 1994 (Rule 8010) and 
submitted to EPA. However, before EPA acted on these versions, the 
State submitted the rules that are the subject of today's proposed 
action. While these later rules supersede the earlier versions, EPA 
reviewed relevant materials associated with the superseded versions. 
SJVUAPCD's Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060 and 8070 would, if 
approved, incorporate the following significant provisions into the 
SIP:
     Definitions and Requirements: Rule 8010 establishes 
definitions that apply to the fugitive dust sources covered under 
Regulation VIII rules and places requirements on dust suppressants.
     Construction/Demolition Site Disturbances: Rule 8020 
requires watering or pre-soaking for land clearing and other operations 
which disturb the soil surface, stabilization of inactive disturbed 
areas, stabilization of unpaved on-site roads and off-site unpaved 
access roads, the removal or limitation of mud or dirt track-out onto 
public paved roads, and use of a dust suppressant or gravel on vehicle 
and material storage areas per Rule 8070.
     Bulk Material Handling and Storage: Rule 8030 requires 
enclosure or wetting of material on chutes or conveyor devices, 
fugitive dust controls for transport of bulk materials in open 
vehicles, trailers, rail cars or containers, cleanup of track-out from 
transport of bulk materials onto public adjacent paved roads, and 
stabilization of outdoor storage piles.
     Landfill Disposal Sites: Rule 8040 requires cleanup of mud 
or dirt track-out onto public adjacent paved roads, paving and cleaning 
a portion of interior landfill site roads to limit track-out, and use 
of a dust suppressant or gravel on vehicle and material storage areas 
per Rule 8070.
     New Paved Roads: Rule 8060 establishes specific paving or 
chemical stabilization requirements for curbs and medians of paved 
roads or road segments 3 miles or more in length that are constructed 
or modified after December 10, 1993 and experience average daily trips 
of 500 vehicles or more.
     New Unpaved Roads: Rule 8060 establishes surface 
stabilization requirements that affect at least a portion of the length 
of unpaved roads or road segments greater than \1/2\ mile in length 
constructed or modified after December 10, 1993.
     Unpaved Vehicle and Equipment Parking Areas: Rule 8070 
requires the application of a dust suppressant or gravel on all unpaved 
parking areas that are 1 acre or larger in size on days they are used, 
and the removal or limitation of mud or dirt track-out onto public 
paved roads.
    EPA has evaluated SJVUAPCD's Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060, 
and 8070 for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy 
and has found that although they will strengthen the SIP, the rules 
contain a number of deficiencies, the most significant of

[[Page 51491]]

which are discussed below. A detailed discussion of rule deficiencies 
and recommended rule improvements can be found in the Technical Support 
Document (TSD) associated with this rulemaking.
     The Regulation VIII rules containing capacity limits 
define Visible Dust Emissions (VDE) as 40% opacity for an aggregate 
period of 3 minutes or more in any one hour. This is the primary 
standard upon which the Regulation VIII rules are based. However, 
considerable PM-10 fugitive dust can be released into the ambient air 
without exceeding a 40% opacity reading. Moreover, EPA believes, based 
on the precedent established in other PM-10 nonattainment areas, that 
this standard does not represent RACM or BACM.
     The Regulation VIII rules lack appropriate standards and/
or test methods that would ensure a level of control consistent with 
RACM or BACM.
     The exemptions (including the thresholds of source 
coverage selected by SJVUAPCD to represent RACM) found in the 
Regulation VIII rules are not supported. In order to address this 
deficiency, either a sufficient demonstration per EPA's BACM guidance 
7 justifying the exemption is required, or the source 
coverage needs to be revised to reflect a BACM level of control. Some 
of the more significant exemptions from rule coverage are listed below; 
all of the exemptions are discussed in the TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ 59 FR 41998-42017, August 16, 1994.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

     Rule 8060 requirements only apply to paved and unpaved 
roads that were constructed or modified after December 10, 1993. Also, 
the rule exempts paved roads/road segments less than 3 miles in length 
and unpaved roads/road segments less than \1/2\ mile in length.
     For unpaved roads that are covered under Rule 8060, 
control measures are only required on 50% or less of the road length.
     Rule 8030 lacks requirements to control fugitive dust from 
the loading and unloading of bulk materials, the addition of bulk 
materials to storage piles, and the removal of bulk materials from 
storage piles.
     Rule 8070 only applies to unpaved parking lots greater 
than one (1) acre.
     Rule 8010, sections 3.23 and 3.27, and Rule 8060, section 
5.1.4 contain inappropriate Executive Officer discretion which could 
result in enforceability problems and is therefore inconsistent with 
the Clean Air Act section 110.
     Rule 8010, section 4.2 and Rule 8020, section 4.2 exempt 
sources with existing permits or approved PM-10 mitigation programs, 
respectively, that provide equally stringent control of fugitive PM-10 
emissions. There is no means to ensure that the level of control in the 
permit is as stringent as in Regulation VIII.
     Because the sources subject to Rule 8020 are temporary in 
nature, there must be a method, e.g., a dust control permit or 
comparable mechanism, to identify sources so that the rule can be 
enforced.
     EPA lacks information to evaluate under EPA's BACM 
guidance the rule's allowance of a 7-day period in which inactive 
storage piles can remain uncontrolled. A 7-day period does not appear 
to be warranted, as during this time significant wind erosion emissions 
can occur and temporary stabilization can be achieved through watering 
or covering/enclosure of piles. Also, Rule 8020 lacks a definition of 
storage piles.
     In numerous sections of the Regulation VIII rules, the 
term ``limit'' is used. This word does not establish a firm threshold 
upon which to base compliance with the rules' requirements.
     Rule 8020, section 5.4.3 strongly encourages, but does not 
require, the use of paved access aprons, gravel strips, wheel washers, 
or other measures designed to limit mud and dirt deposits on public 
paved roads. A requirement would better ensure that track-out is 
prevented. Similar measures for track-out are required in other serious 
PM-10 nonattainment areas, which suggests that this measure is feasible 
as a best available practice in SJVUAPCD.
     Rule 8020, section 5.5 and Rule 8040, section 5.4 require 
that all areas used for storage of construction vehicles, equipment, 
and materials comply with Rule 8070. The term ``storage'' needs to be 
defined in order to clarify the circumstances under which Rule 8070 
requirements apply to the parking activities of sources covered under 
Rules 8020 and 8040. The rules should also clarify whether the 1 acre 
unpaved parking lot compliance threshold in Rule 8070, below which 
sources are exempt, also applies to sources covered under Rules 8020 
and 8040.
     Rule 8060, section 5.2.2 allows watering the entire length 
of a new unpaved road surface at least once a week as a control measure 
option. Rule 8070, section 4.1.1 allows watering unpaved parking lots 
once a day as a control measure option. EPA believes these control 
measures are too temporal to represent RACM or BACM on unpaved surfaces 
that receive regular vehicle use.
     The Regulation VIII rules lack recordkeeping requirements 
for sources subject to controls, with the exception of Rule 8060 
coverage of new paved roads. Recordkeeping is needed in order to verify 
compliance with the requirements or limits established by the rules.
    These deficiencies may lead to enforceability problems and/or are 
not supported as representing RACM and BACM and are, therefore, not 
consistent with sections 172(c)(6), 189(a)(1)(C), and 189(b)(1)(B) of 
the CAA. Moreover, to the extent that the rules do not represent RACM 
and BACM, under section 110(l), EPA cannot fully approve them.
    As a result, EPA cannot grant full approval of these rules under 
section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the submitted rules are not 
composed of separable parts that meet all the applicable requirements 
of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval of the rules under 
section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a 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 approval is limited because 
EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited disapproval. In order 
to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited approval of 
SJVUAPCD's submitted Regulation VIII Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060 
and 8070 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
    At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of 
these rules because they contain deficiencies and, as such, the rules 
do not fully meet the requirements of part D of the Act. Under section 
179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under section 
110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the submission's 
failure to meet one or more of the elements required by the Act, the 
Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in section 
179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months of 
such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions available to 
the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18 month period 
referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective date of EPA's 
final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the 
Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). It 
should be noted that the rules covered by this action have been adopted 
by the SJVUAPCD and are currently in effect in the SJVUAPCD. EPA's 
final limited

[[Page 51492]]

disapproval action will not prevent SJVUAPCD or EPA from enforcing the 
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. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 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 Executive 
Order 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 
Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 13045 because it is 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 
Executive Order 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.

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 compounds.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.


[[Page 51493]]


    Dated: September 10, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.
[FR Doc. 99-24843 Filed 9-22-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P