[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 66 (Wednesday, April 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17768-17771]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-8149]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-157-0222; FRL-6569-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 
Management District, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley Unified, and 
Ventura County Air Pollution Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern rule 
rescissions from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management 
District (SMAQMD), San Diego County Air Pollution Control District 
(SDCAPCD), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District 
(SJVUAPCD), and amendments to Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District (VCAPCD). This approval action will rescind and amend these 
rules from the federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving 
these rule rescissions and amendments is to update and clarify the 
State Implementation Plan in accordance with the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

[[Page 17769]]

(CAA or the Act). The rule rescissions consist of obsolete rules that 
have been superseded or removed from the district's regulations. EPA is 
finalizing the approval of these revisions to the California SIP under 
provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIP 
requirements for national primary and secondary ambient air quality 
standards and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES:  This rule is effective on June 5, 2000 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 5, 2000. If EPA receives 
such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:  Written comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel, 
Chief, Rulemaking Office at the Region IX office listed below. 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 available 
for inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
California Air Resources Board Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411 Jackson 
Rd., Sacramento, CA 95826
San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, 
San Diego, CA 92123-1096
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 
Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, 
Ventura, CA 93003

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office, 
AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415-744-
1189).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rule revisions to the California SIP are listed below.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)

    Rule 445, Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning, submitted 05/18/98; 
rescission adopted 10/03/96.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)

    Rule 67.8, Dry Cleaning Facilities Using Halogenated Organic 
Solvent, submitted 07/23/99, rescission adopted 11/04/98.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

    Rule 4671, Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning System, submitted 10/13/
95, rescission adopted 06/15/95.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)

    Rule 74.5.2, Dry Cleaning Facilities Using Halogenated Organic 
Solvents, submitted 08/10/95 revision adopted 05/09/95.

II. Background

    On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment 
areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 
(1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included the SMAQMD, SDCAPCD, 
SJVUAPCD, and VCAPCD. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. In response to section 
110 (a) of the Act and other requirements, SMAQMD, SDCAPCD, SJVUAPCD, 
and VCAPCD submitted many rules which EPA approved into the SIP.
    On February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4588) EPA published a final rule 
excluding perchloroethylene from the definition of volatile organic 
compound. This compound was determined to have negligible photochemical 
reactivity and, thus, was added to the Agency's list of Exempt 
Compounds.
    The State of California submitted the rule revisions listed above 
to update the federally enforceable SIP for the SMAQMD, SDCAPCD, 
SJVUAPCD, and VCAPCD, and to be consistent with EPA's 1996 rulemaking. 
The following is EPA's evaluation and final action for each rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

    In determining whether to approve each revision to the SIP, EPA 
must evaluate the revisions 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). The EPA interpretation of these 
requirements, which forms the basis for this action, appears in various 
EPA policy guidance documents.
    The rules that are being rescinded are not appropriate for the SIP 
because they do not control criteria pollutants. EPA regulates 
perchloroethylene as a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of the 
Act.
    EPA has evaluated the rule revisons and has determined that they 
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, all of the rule revisions listed in section I, Applicability 
are being approved under section 110(k) of the CAA as meeting the 
requirements of section 110(a) and part D.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 5, 2000 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
May 5, 2000.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested 
in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such 
comments are received, the public is advised that this rule is 
effective on June 5, 2000, and no further action will be taken on the 
proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. 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,

[[Page 17770]]

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 does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. 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 affects or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must 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 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.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13121, 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 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.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

[[Page 17771]]

H. 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 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. 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 June 5, 2000. 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 compounds.

    Dated: March 15, 2000.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

    Part 52, Chapter I, Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

    The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart F--California

    1. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs 
(c)(183)(i)(A)(8), (c)(184)(i)(A)(3), (c)(185)(i)(C)(7), and 
(c)(224)(i)(B)(3) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (183) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (8) Previously approved on March 24, 1992 and now deleted without 
replacement Rule 67.8.
* * * * *
    (184) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (3) Previously approved on August 20, 1991 and now deleted without 
replacement Rule 445.
* * * * *
    (185) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) * * *
    (7) Previously approved on April 24, 1992 and now deleted without 
replacement Rule 467.1.
* * * * *
    (224) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (3) Rule 74.5.2, adopted on May 5, 1995.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-8149 Filed 4-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P