[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