[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53210-53212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25568]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 033-0171; FRL-6446-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado County Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval 
of a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
proposed in the Federal Register on April 4, 1994. This final action 
will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. The 
intended effect of finalizing this action is to regulate emissions of 
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the requirements 
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The revised 
rules control VOC emissions from the loading, unloading, and storage of 
petroleum products. EPA is finalizing a simultaneous limited approval 
and limited disapproval under CAA provisions 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. As a result of this limited disapproval EPA will 
be required to impose highway funding or emission offset sanctions 
under the CAA unless the State submits and EPA approves corrections to 
the identified deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of 
this disapproval. Moreover, EPA will be required to promulgate a 
Federal implementation plan (FIP) unless the deficiencies are corrected 
within 24 months of the effective date of this disapproval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on November 1, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report for 
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 95814
El Dorado Air Pollution Control District, 7553 Green Valley Road, 
Placerville, CA 95667-4197.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Fantillo, Rulemaking Office, (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1183.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of a 
revision to the California SIP submitted by El Dorado County Air 
Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD) entitled Regulation IX, Air Toxic 
Control Measures, Section A, Benzene, Rules 900 through 914. This 
regulation was submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) 
to EPA on April 5, 1991.

II. Background

    On April 4, 1994 in 64 FR 15686, EPA proposed granting a limited 
approval and limited disapproval of EDCAPCD Regulation IX, Air Toxic 
Control Measure, Section A, Benzene, (Rules 900 through 914) into the 
California SIP. These 900 series rules were adopted by EDCAPCD on 
September 18, 1990 and submitted by the CARB to EPA on April 5, 1991. 
The rules were submitted in response to EPA's 1988 SIP Call and the CAA 
section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement that nonattainment areas fix their 
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for ozone in 
accordance with EPA guidance that interpreted the requirements of the 
pre-amendment Act. A detailed discussion of the background for each of 
the above rules and nonattainment areas is provided in the proposed 
rule (PR) cited above.
    EPA has evaluated all of the above rules for consistency with the 
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA's interpretation of 
these requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance 
documents referenced in the PR. EPA is finalizing the limited approval 
of these rules in order to strengthen the SIP and finalizing the 
limited disapproval requiring the correction of the remaining 
deficiencies. In summary, the deficiencies relate to the lack of a 
specific definition of the facilities to which the rules apply, 
improper definition of test methods, Control Officer discretion to 
require unspecified control equipment, and a higher throughput 
exemption than allowed by section 182(b)(3). These deficiencies must be 
corrected pursuant to the requirements of sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 
part D of the CAA. A detailed discussion of the rule provisions and 
evaluations has been provided in the PR and in technical support 
document (TSD) available at EPA's Region IX office (TSD dated April 30, 
1993, Regulation IX, Rules 900 through 914).

III. Response to Public Comments

    A 30-day public comment period was provided in 59 FR 15686; EPA did 
not receive any comments.

IV. EPA Action

    EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the 
above-referenced rules. The limited approval of these rules is being 
finalized 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 in the sense that the 
rules strengthen the SIP. However, the rules do not meet the section 
182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because of the rule deficiencies which 
were discussed in the PR. Thus, in order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is 
granting limited approval of these rules under sections 110(k)(3) and 
301(a) of the CAA. This action approves the rules into the SIP as 
federally enforceable rules.

[[Page 53211]]

    At the same time, EPA is finalizing the limited disapproval of 
these rules because they contain deficiencies that have not been 
corrected as required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such, 
the rules do not fully meet the requirements of Part D of the Act. As 
stated in the proposed rule, upon the effective date of this final 
rule, the 18 month clock for sanctions and the 24 month FIP clock will 
begin. Sections 179(a) and 110(c). If the State does not submit the 
required corrections and EPA does not approve the submittal within 18 
months of the effective date of the final rule, either the highway 
sanction or the offset sanction will be imposed at the 18 month mark. 
It should be noted that the rules covered by this FR have been adopted 
by the EDCAPCD and are currently in effect in the EDCAPCD. EPA's 
limited disapproval action will not prevent a EDCAPCD or EPA from 
enforcing these rules.

V. 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 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 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 
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

[[Page 53212]]

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 November 30, 1999. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.
Nora L. McGee,
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 paragraph (c)(183)(H)(1) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (183) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (H) El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Regulation IX, Rules 900 through 914, adopted September 18, 
1990.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-25568 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P