[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 47 (Thursday, March 9, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12495-12499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5629]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 022-0185; FRL-6548-6]


Approving Implementation Plans; California State Implementation 
Plan Revision, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which 
concern several Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
(District) rules about permitting and New Source Review (NSR) for 
stationary sources. EPA also proposes to delete from the SIP four rules 
that are obsolete. The rules subject to this action are both for 
general permitting requirements and for requirements specific to major 
new or modified air emission sources. A description of these rules is 
in our technical support document (TSD) in the administrative record 
for this action.
    The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited 
disapproval is to ensure the District's permitting and NSR rules are 
consistent with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 
1990 (CAA or the Act). EPA's final action will incorporate these rules 
into the federally approved SIP. Although the rules generally 
strengthen the SIP, some of the rules subject to this action do not 
fully meet the CAA requirements for non-attainment areas and contain 
deficiencies which must be corrected. The rules have been evaluated 
based on CAA guidelines for EPA action on SIP submittals and general 
rulemaking authority.
    In this document we are also requesting comments on one issue.

DATES: Comments must be received by April 10, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Nahid Zoueshtiagh, Permits Office (AIR-3), 
Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. You can review and copy 
these rules, the existing SIP rules and EPA's TSD at EPA's Region 9 
office from 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM Monday-Friday. A reasonable fee may be 
charged for copying. 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 
95812.
     Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County 
Square Drive, Ventura, California 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nahid Zoueshtiagh at (415) 744-1261.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What Action is EPA Proposing?
    1. Limited Approval and Disapproval of Permitting and New Source 
Review Rules
    2. Removal of four rules from the SIP
    3. Removal of Conditions in 1981 NSR SIP Approval
    II. How Did EPA Arrive at the Proposed Action?
    1. Overview
    2. Deficiencies of Permitting and New Source Review Rules
    3. Removing Rules 18, 21, 25 and 37
III. EPA Solicits Comment on One Issue
    1. Public Notification
IV. Overview of Limited Approval/Disapproval
V. Administrative Requirements
    1. Executive Order 12866
    2. Executive Order 13045
    3. Executive Order 13084
    4. Executive Order 13132
    5. Regulatory Flexibility Act
    6. Unfunded Mandates
    7. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. What Action Is EPA Proposing?

1. Limited approval and disapproval of Permitting and New Source Review 
Rules.

    EPA today proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the California SIP for the District rules presented in 
Table 1. Upon final action, the rules will replace the existing SIP 
rules, also presented in Table 1.

                               Table 1.--Rules Subject to Today's Proposed Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               SIP
          Rule No.                Existing SIP title         approval        Current rule title        Adoption
                                                               date                                      date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10.........................  Permits Required............      6/18/82  Permits Required............     6/13/95
11.........................  Application Contents........      6/18/82  Definitions for Regulation       6/13/95
                                                                         II.
12.........................  Statement by Engineer or           2/3/89  Application for Permits.....     6/13/95
                              Application Preparer.
13.........................  Statement by Applicant......      6/18/82  Action on Applications for       6/13/95
                                                                         an Authority to Construct.
14.........................  Trial Test Runs.............      9/22/72  Action on Application for a      6/13/95
                                                                         Permit to Operate.

[[Page 12496]]

 
15.........................  Permit Issuance.............      4/17/87  Standards for Permit             6/13/95
                                                                         Issuance.
15.1.......................  None........................  ...........  Sampling and Testing            10/12/93
                                                                         Facilities.
16.........................  Permit Contents.............      6/18/82  BACT Certification..........     6/13/95
18.........................  Permit to Operate-                9/22/72  None--Repealed..............     6/13/95
                              Application Required for
                              Existing Equipment.
21.........................  Expiration of Applications        6/18/82  None--Repealed..............     6/13/95
                              and Permits.
23.........................  Exemptions from Permits.....      6/18/82  Exemptions from Permit......      7/9/96
24.........................  Source Recordkeeping &            6/18/82  Source Recordkeeping &           9/15/92
                              Reporting.                                 Reporting.
25.........................  Action on Applications......      6/18/82  None--Repealed..............     6/13/95
26.........................  New Source Review...........       7/1/82  New Source Review...........    10/22/91
26.1.......................  All New & Modified                 7/1/82  New Source Review (NSR)          1/13/98
                              Stationary Sources.                        Definitions.
26.2.......................  All New & Modified                 7/1/82  Requirements................     1/13/98
                              Stationary Sources-
                              Attainment Pollutants.
26.3.......................  All New & Modified                 7/1/82  Exemptions..................      1/3/98
                              Stationary Sources Non-
                              attainment Pollutants.
26.4.......................  Banking.....................         None  Emission Banking............     1/13/98
26.5.......................  Power Plants................       7/1/82  Community Bank..............     1/13/98
26.6.......................  Air Quality Impact Analysis        7/1/82  Calculations................     1/13/98
                              & Modification.
26.7.......................  None........................  ...........  NSR-Notification............    12/22/92
26.8.......................  None........................  ...........  NSR-Permit to Operate.......    10/22/91
26.9.......................  None........................  ...........  PowerPlants.................    10/22/91
26.1.......................  None........................  ...........  Prevention of Significant        1/13/98
                                                                         Deterioration (PSD).
29.........................  Conditions on Permit........      6/18/82  Conditions on Permits.......    10/22/91
30.........................  Permit Renewal..............       5/3/84  Permit Renewal..............     5/30/89
37.........................  Source Record Keeping and         5/18/77  None--Replaced by Rule 24...     5/23/79
                              Reporting.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Generally, the District rules subject to this action will 
strengthen the SIP. However, some rules contain deficiencies and are 
not fully approvable under part D of the CAA. Therefore, EPA today 
proposes a limited approval and limited disapproval of these rules. If 
our final action remains a limited approval and limited disapproval, 
the District will have 18 months from the date of the final action to 
correct any deficiencies to avoid federal sanctions. See CAA section 
179(b). Further, the District's failure to correct the deficiencies 
will trigger the Federal implementation plan requirements under 110(c). 
We have summarized the rule deficiencies in section II of this 
document. A discussion of the rules subject to this action, and our 
evaluation are contained in the TSD for this rulemaking action. The TSD 
is available from the EPA Region 9 office.

2. Removal of four rules from the SIP

    In addition to our action on the rules listed above, we propose to 
delete the District Rules 18, 21, 25 and 37 from the SIP. As Table-1 
shows, these rules have already been repealed by the District. We are 
approving removal of these rules because their requirements are now 
contained in the rules subject to today's action.

3. Removal of Conditions in 1981 NSR SIP Approval

    In addition to the above proposed actions, we propose to delete the 
District NSR rule conditions identified when EPA finalized the NSR 
rules in 1981. See 46 FR 21757 and 40 CFR 52.232(a)(11). These 
conditions are moot today for the following reasons:
     The current rules will, upon final approval, supercede the 
1980 rules;
     EPA has not taken action on any revisions to the 
District's NSR rule since 1981;
     The District has revised and submitted new NSR rules to 
comply with the 1990 CAA amendments.

II. How Did EPA Arrive at the Proposed Action?

1. Overview

    EPA evaluated the District rules 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). Our interpretation of 
these requirements, which forms the basis for today's action, appears 
in the various EPA policy guidance documents. EPA has issued a 
``General Preamble'' describing EPA's preliminary views on how EPA 
intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under part D, 
including those State submittals containing non-attainment NSR SIP 
requirements (See 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 
28, 1992)). Because EPA is describing its interpretations here only in 
broad terms, the reader should refer to the General Preamble for a more 
detailed discussion.
    The Act requires States to comply with certain procedural 
requirements in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for 
submission to EPA. Section 110(a)(2) and section 110(l) of the Act 
require that each implementation plan or revision to an implementation 
plan submitted by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and 
public hearing. Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan 
provisions for non-attainment areas shall meet the applicable 
provisions of section 110(a)(2). We believe that once the District 
rules subject to this action are approved into the SIP, they will 
strengthen the existing SIP by:
     Including major source and major modification thresholds 
that are consistent with the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments for major 
stationary sources and major modifications locating in the District 
which is classified a severe ozone non-attainment area;
     Establishing the appropriate emissions offset ratio for 
major stationary sources and major modifications locating in severe 
ozone non-attainment areas;
     Establishing a comprehensive permitting program;

[[Page 12497]]

     Clarifying the existing requirements.

2. Deficiencies of Permitting and New Source Review Rules

    We are proposing limited approval and limited disapproval for Rule 
10 (Permits Required), Rule 11 (Definitions for Regulation II), Rule 12 
(Applications for Permits), Rule 13 (Action on Applications for an 
Authority to Construct (ATC)), Rule 14 (Action on Applications for a 
Permit to Operate (PTO)), Rule 15 (Standards for Permit Issuance), Rule 
15.1 (Sampling and Testing Facilities), Rule 16 (BACT Certification), 
Rule 23 (Exemptions from Permit), Rule 24 (Recordkeeping & Recording), 
Rule 26 and its subsection rules (New Source Review), Rule 29 
(Conditions on Permits), and Rule 30 (Permit Renewal). These rules were 
submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA for 
incorporation into the SIP. For some rules the District has submitted 
numerous revisions since the initial SIP approval dates. We are taking 
action only on the latest SIP submittal. The submittal dates for the 
rules subject to this action, shown in parentheses, are as follows.
     Rules 30 (3/26/90)
     Rules 26, 26.8-26.9 (1/28/92)
     Rule 29 (6/19/92)
     Rule 24 (11/12/92)
     Rule 26.7 (5/13/93)
     Rule 15.1 (3/29/94)
     Rules 10-15, 16, 18, 21 and 25 (10/13/95)
     Rule 23 (10/18/96)
     Rules 26.1-26.6, and 26.10 (5/18/98)
    Although the latest rules that were submitted and are being acted 
on in this action will strengthen the SIP, the rules have several 
deficiencies which prevent EPA from being able to fully approve them. 
These deficiencies relate to Rules 10 and 26. We also note that for 
Rule 15 we read the reference to a variance as being limited to 
incorporating a compliance schedule, and not providing any latitude to 
avoid compliance with an applicable requirement. In addition to 
identifying the deficiencies, we are suggesting how to correct them. 
Following is a summary of the rule deficiencies which must be corrected 
to support full approval:
a. Deficiencies with Rule 10
    Part 10.2.b of this rule provides an exemption from obtaining an 
ATC for emission units which relocate within five miles in the 
District. This exemption applies only to cases in which there is no 
emission increase for the relocating units. However, the exemption is 
not limited to a particular equipment size or type or amount of 
emissions. Under this exemption, the emission units must only obtain a 
PTO at the new location. We understand that historically the District 
has used this provision of the rule for relocation of very small 
sources (such as dry cleaners) that often relocate because of lease 
expiration.
    We are disapproving this exemption because issuance of only a PTO 
for the relocated units at the new location will not satisfy two 
important requirements ensured through an ATC. The first is an analysis 
for the best available control technology (BACT), as provided in 
District's Rules 11 and 26. The second is public notification. In 
regard to the BACT requirements, it should be noted that for non-
attainment pollutants, prior to the issuance of an ATC, EPA requires 
the lowest achievable emission rate (LAER) instead of BACT. However, as 
discussed in the TSD for this action, EPA has determined that the 
District's BACT requirements satisfy the federal LAER requirements.
    The relocation exemption under Rule 10 does not have any 
restrictions on the number of units, size, type or the age of the 
relocating emission unit. Therefore a relocating unit, regardless of 
its age (i.e. the issuance date of its ATC), could operate under its 
existing BACT which was determined at the time of the ATC issuance. 
Further, Rule 10.B.2.d which requires a PTO to include a statement that 
the PTO shall not be construed to allow any emissions unit to operate 
in violation of any applicable State or Federal standards, will not 
satisfy the ATC requirements for BACT and public notice.
    We believe Rule 10 is deficient because it circumvents both of the 
key requirements--BACT and public notice for an ATC. If the District 
believes that this type of exemption is necessary and justified for 
certain types of very small sources and operations, then it must 
clarify the rule and set specific conditions for the exemption from an 
ATC for very small relocating emission units.
    Further, the District must revise section A.3 of its Rule 26.3 (NSR 
exemption for relocated units) to reflect revisions it is making to 
Rule 10 to correct the deficiency.
b. Deficiencies with Rule 26
    Rules 26.1 through 26.10 constitute the District NSR program. The 
rules apply to sources of air pollution that require an ATC or a PTO. 
According to these rules, any new, modified, replaced or relocated 
major sources of emissions must apply BACT, and must obtain offsets for 
the increased air pollutants. Rule 26 has three areas of deficiencies. 
The first deficiency is about the requirements for offsetting air 
emission increases. The NSR rules must meet the CAA section 173(c)(2) 
requirements for offsetting air emissions increases. The Act requires 
that sources provide offsets in order to obtain an ATC permit. 
Specifically, the Act requires that offsetting emission reductions must 
be federally enforceable at the time that the NSR permit is issued 
(section 173(a)), and in effect by the time the source commences 
operation (section 173(c)(1)). In addition, section 173(c)(2) requires 
that the offsets be surplus of all other requirements of the Act. In 
other words, the CAA does not allow the use of emission reduction 
credits (ERCs) which were surplus some years ago when they were banked, 
but which are no longer surplus at the time that the ATC permit is 
issued. Thus, the District is required to adjust all emission 
reductions to ensure that the requirement of section 173(c)(2) for 
surplus ERCs is met at the time that the ERCs are used. The District 
rule is deficient because it does not require that ERCs be surplus at 
the time of use. To be corrected, Rules 26.2.B and 26.6.D.7.b must 
specify that the ERCs be surplus at the time of use. The District must 
revise 26.2.B and 26.6.D.7 to add this requirement. The District should 
also revise the definition of major modification in Rule 26.1.16, to 
add that in calculating contemporaneous net emission increases, ERCs 
that are not surplus at the time of use shall not be included.
    A second deficiency in the District NSR program is Rule 26.2.C. 
Rule 26.2.C provides authority to the District to deny a permit to 
operate to a source which would cause the violation of any ambient air 
quality standards. The rule, however, must also provide the District 
with the authority to deny a permit if a source would cause increases 
in pollution concentrations over the baseline concentration and would 
cause violation of ambient air increments. To correct this deficiency, 
the District must revise this rule to include an authority to deny a 
permit to operate if a source would cause violation of ambient air 
increments.
    The third deficiency in District's NSR program is about relying 
entirely on California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the 
alternatives analysis required by section 173(a)(5) of the Act. We are 
specifically concerned about certain exemptions provided by CEQA which 
could result in bypassing the federal requirements for the alternatives 
analysis. Rule 26.2.E allows a source to

[[Page 12498]]

comply with the alternatives analysis by qualifying for a statutory or 
categorical exemption, or a negative declaration pursuant to CEQA. The 
CAA does not contain any exemptions from the requirement to conduct an 
alternatives analysis. The District must revise the rule to remove any 
exemptions. Further, although the District may base its alternatives 
analysis on materials developed under CEQA, the District must 
independently conclude that the alternatives analysis demonstrates that 
the benefits of the proposed source significantly outweigh the 
environmental and social cost.

3. Removing Rules 18, 21, 25 and 37

    In addition to our proposed limited approval and limited 
disapproval action on the permitting and NSR rules, we propose to 
delete Rules 18, 21, 25 and 37. These rules are obsolete today for the 
following reasons:
     The District has repealed them;
     The requirements of Rules 18, 21 and 25 are contained in 
Rules 10, 12 and 13.
     The requirements of Rule 37 are now contained in Rule 24.

III. EPA Solicits Comment on One Issue

    We are soliciting comments on the following issue:

1. Public Notification

    The District does not require public notification for its 
preliminary ATC decisions for all emission sources. The public 
notification rule (Rule 26.7) only requires public notification for an 
ATC if the potential to emit (PTE) from all new, modified, replacement 
or relocated units exceeds the limits presented in Table--2.

             Table #2.--PTE Threshold for Public Notification
                           [In tons per year]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Nitrogen Oxides (NOX)..........................................    15.0
Reactive Organic Compounds (ROC)................................    15.0
Sulfur Oxides (SOX).............................................    15.0
Particulate Matter (PM-10)......................................    15.0
Carbon Monoxide (CO)............................................   100.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, if the PTE is lower than the above limits, the District 
is not required to notify the public. Please note that the District's 
above listed threshold levels are lower than the federal significance 
levels for NOX, ROC, and SOX, and are equal to 
the federal significance levels for PM-10 and CO. The federal NSR 
regulation under 40 CFR 51.161 does not specify any emissions threshold 
for public notification. 40 CFR 51.160(e), however, requires States to 
``identify types and sizes of facilities that will be subject to 
review. * * *'' and ``discuss the basis for determining which 
facilities will be subject to review.'' We are soliciting comment on 
whether the District's PTE emission levels in Rule 26.7 are appropriate 
to ensure the public has the opportunity to review the proposed ATC 
permits.

IV. Overview of Limited Approval/Disapproval

    Because of the deficiencies identified in this rulemaking, Rules 
10, 15 and 26 are not approvable pursuant to section 182(a)(2)(A) of 
the CAA and EPA cannot grant full approval of the District's permitting 
and NSR program under section 110(k)(3) and part D. Rules 10, 15 and 26 
are not consistent with the interpretation of sections 110(a)(2)(C) and 
173 of the CAA, and may lead to rule enforceability problems.
    Also, because the submitted rules are not composed of separable 
parts which 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 
permitting and NSR 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 
the District's submitted rules 10-15, 15.1, 16, 23-24, 26, 26.1-26.10 
and 29-30 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.
    At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of 
the District's rules 10-15, 15.1, 16, 23-24, 26, 26.1-26.10 and 29-30, 
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 non-attainment, 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: 
withholding highway funding and increasing the offset requirements. 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 
limited disapproval triggers the federal implementation plan (FIP) 
requirement under section 110(c). It should be noted that the rules 
covered by this proposed rulemaking have been adopted by the District 
and are currently in effect in the District. EPA's final limited 
disapproval action will not prevent the District or EPA from enforcing 
these 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.

V. Administrative Requirements

1. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review.

2. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.

3. 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

[[Page 12499]]

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.

4. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do 
not apply to this rule.
    5. 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).

6. 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.

7. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
proposed action does not require the public to perform activities 
conducive to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 25, 2000.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-5629 Filed 3-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P