[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 88 (Tuesday, May 7, 2002)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30591-30594]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-11174]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 261-0337a; FRL-7171-3]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve a revision to the 
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 
portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This 
revision concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
adhesives. We are approving a local rule that regulates this emission 
source under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on July 8, 2002 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 6, 2002. If we receive 
such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal 
Register to notify the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 
Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revision and EPA's 
technical support document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal 
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revision 
at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building,

[[Page 30592]]

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington D.C. 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. 
Gettysburg, Fresno, CA 93726.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4117.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rule did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of this rule?
    C. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revision?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rule?
    B. Does the rule meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rule.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Background Information
    Why was this rule submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rule Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rule we are approving with the dates that it was 
adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air 
Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                  Rule No.            Rule title              Adopted      Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD..................................       4653  Adhesives....................     12/20/01      02/20/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On March 15, 2002, this rule submittal was found to meet the 
completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met 
before formal EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?

    We approved a version of Rule 4653 into the SIP on September 13, 
2000. The SJVUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version on 
December 14, 2000 and December 20, 2001. CARB submitted those revisions 
to us on March 14, 2001 and February 20, 2002. While we can act on only 
the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials 
provided with the previous submittal.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revision?

    The rule revision was submitted to correct deficiencies identified 
by us in our September 13, 2000 rulemaking. The TSD has more 
information about this rule.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and 
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The 
SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so 
Rule 4653 must fulfill RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate 
specific enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
    1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide 
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
    2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and 
Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24,1987 Federal 
Register Notice,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the 
May 25, 1988 Federal Register.
    3. The California Air Resources Board's Determination of Reasonably 
Available Control Technology and Best Available Retrofit Control 
Technology for Adhesives and Sealants, dated December 1998.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe this rule is consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSD 
has more information on our evaluation.

C. EPA Recommendations to Further Improve the Rule

    The TSD describes additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rule.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rule because we believe it fulfills all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule. If we 
receive adverse comments by June 6, 2002, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on July 8, 2002. This will incorporate this rule 
into the federally enforceable SIP and permanently terminate all 
sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks associated with 
EPA's September 13, 2000 limited disapproval of a previous version of 
this rule.

III. Background Information

Why Was This Rule Submitted?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states 
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of 
the national milestones leading to the submittal of this local agency 
VOC rule.

                Table 2--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Date                                Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978..........................  EPA promulgated a list of ozone
                                          nonattainment areas under the
                                          Clean Air Act as amended in
                                          1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR
                                          81.305.

[[Page 30593]]

 
May 26, 1988...........................  EPA notified Governors that
                                          parts of their SIPs were
                                          inadequate to attain and
                                          maintain the ozone standard
                                          and requested that they
                                          correct the deficiencies
                                          (EPA's SIP-Call). See section
                                          110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-
                                          amended Act.
November 15, 1990......................  Clean Air Act Amendments of
                                          1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-
                                          549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified
                                          at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
May 15, 1991...........................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires
                                          that ozone nonattainment areas
                                          correct deficient RACT rules
                                          by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13211

    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions 
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a 
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

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

D. 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 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, because it 
merely acts on 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. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful 
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship 
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

F. 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 act on 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).

G. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

[[Page 30594]]

(``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 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the 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 costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action acts on 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.

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.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of VCS.

I. 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).

J. 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 July 8, 2002. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 29, 2002.
Laura Yoshii,
Deputy 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)(294) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (294) New and amended regulations for the following APCD were 
submitted on February 20, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 4653, amended on December 20, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-11174 Filed 5-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P