[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 56 (Monday, March 24, 2003)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 14156-14159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-6810]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 275-0378a; FRL-7460-5]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Bay Area 
Air Quality Management District, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality 
Management District, and 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 revisions to the 
Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD), Sacramento 
Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), and San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of 
the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The BAAQMD revision 
concerns the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) from the 
transfer of gasoline to stationary storage tanks and motor vehicle fuel 
tanks. The SMAQMD and SJVUAPCD revisions concern the emission of VOCs 
from the transfer of gasoline to motor vehicle fuel tanks. We are 
approving local rules that regulate these emission sources under the 
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on May 23, 2003 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 23, 2003. If we receive 
such comments, 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.
    You can inspect a copy of the submitted rules and EPA's technical 
support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business 
hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rules and TSDs at the 
following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, (Mail Code 6102T), Room B-102, 1301 Constitution 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94109.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411 
Jackson Road, Sacramento, CA 95826.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East 
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.

    A copy of a rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. This is not an EPA website and it may 
not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA. 
Readers should verify that the adoption date of the rule listed is the 
same as the rule submitted to EPA for approval and be aware that the 
official submittal is only available at the agency addresses listed 
above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.

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

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What Rules did the State Submit?
    B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
    C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules?

[[Page 14157]]

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
    B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
    C. Public Comment and Final Action
III. Background Information
    Why Were These Rules Submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the date that they 
were revised by the local air agencies and submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Rule
               Local agency                             Rule title               Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BAAQMD...................................        8-7  Gasoline Dispensing Facilities..     11/06/02     12/12/02
SMAQMD...................................        449  Transfer of Gasoline into            09/26/02     11/19/02
                                                       Vehicle Fuel Tanks.
SJVUAPCD.................................       4622  Gasoline Transfer into Motor         09/19/02     11/19/02
                                                       Vehicle Fuel Tanks.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 7, 2003, these submittals were 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 These Rules?

    We gave a limited approval/limited disapproval to a version of 
BAAQMD Rule 8-7, SMAQMD Rule 449, and SJVUAPCD Rule 4622 on July 25, 
2001 (66 FR 38561).

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

    The purposes of the submitted revisions are to correct deficiencies 
cited by limited approval/limited disapproval actions.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 
193). SIP rules must require Reasonably Available Control Technology 
(RACT) for major sources in ozone nonattainment areas (see section 
182(a)(2)(A)) and must fulfill the special requirements for gasoline 
vapor recovery in ozone nonattainment areas (see section 182(b)(3)(A)).
    The BAAQMD regulates a CAA subpart 1 ozone nonattainment area, the 
SMAQMD regulates a severe ozone nonattainment area, and the SJVUAPCD 
regulates a serious ozone nonattainment area. All rules must fulfill 
the requirements of RACT.
    The following guidance documents were used for reference:
    [sbull] Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
    [sbull] 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.
    [sbull] EPA Draft Model Rule, Gasoline Dispensing Facility-Stage II 
Vapor Recovery (August 17, 1992).
    [sbull] Gasoline Vapor Recovery Guidelines, EPA Region IX (April 
24, 2000).
    [sbull] Model Volatile Organic Compound Rule for Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (RACT), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards (June 1992).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe the rules are consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, and fulfilling 
RACT. All of the deficiencies identified in our previous limited 
approval and limited disapproval action on BAAQMD Rule 8-7 have been 
adequately addressed as follows:
    [sbull] [Paragraphs 302.3 and 306 require maintaining equipment 
free of defects as defined in California Health and Safety Code 
41960.2(c). California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 17, section 
94006 should be referenced instead, because it contains a list of the 
defects.] Section 306 provides the required references.
    [sbull] [Reverification of the performance tests of the vapor 
recovery system originally required by the CARB Executive Order should 
be performed more frequently. EPA recommends once every six months or, 
if In-Station Diagnostics are used, once every two years.] Section 
301.13 requires testing for Vapor Tightness in the preceding 12 months 
in order to operate Phase I equipment. Section 302.14 requires testing 
for Dynamic Back Pressure in the preceding 12 months in order to 
operate a balance Phase II vapor recovery system. Section 302.15 
requires testing for Air-to-Liquid Volume Ratio in the preceding 12 
months in order to operate a vacuum assist Phase II vapor recovery 
system. We consider the 12-month interval to be reasonable for 
reverification of performance tests in the BAAQMD.
    All of the deficiencies identified in our previous limited approval 
and limited disapproval action on SMAQMD Rule 449 have been adequately 
addressed as follows:
    [sbull] [The rule should reference the specific EPA-approved test 
method to be used for performance tests and reverification of 
performance tests for an air-to-liquid volume ratio test and a liquid 
removal rate test.] Section 501 references the required performance 
tests.
    [sbull] [Performance testing of vapor recovery equipment should 
start within 30 days of completion of construction of vapor recovery 
equipment.] Section 402.2 requires that any new or modified vapor 
recovery system take and pass all applicable performance tests within 
30 days of completion of construction.
    [sbull] [Reverification of the performance tests of the vapor 
recovery system originally required by the CARB Executive Order should 
be performed more frequently. EPA recommends once every six months or, 
if In-Station Diagnostics are used, once every two years.] Section 
402.3.a requires that reverification tests be performed within 30 days 
of the end of a 6-month period for over an average of 100,000 gallons 
per month throughput and within 30 days of the end of a 1-year period 
for less than an average of 100,000 gallons per month throughput. We 
consider the 6-month and 1-year intervals to be reasonable for 
reverification of performance tests in the SMAQMD. If In-Station 
Diagnostics are used, the test frequency may be every 2 years if 
approved by the APCO and allowed by the CARB Executive Order.
    [sbull] [The rule should require that maintenance records, 
performance test records, reverification of performance test records, 
and gasoline throughput records (if an exemption is claimed) be kept 
with a retention period of at least two years.] Section 502.3 requires 
that

[[Page 14158]]

records be kept not less than 3 years, except that records for sources 
subject to Rule 207 must be kept for 5 years.
    All of the deficiencies identified in our previous limited approval 
and limited disapproval action on SJVUAPCD Rule 4622 have been 
adequately addressed as follows:
    [sbull] [Section 5.5.11 contains a reference to California 
Administrative Code, Title 17, section 94001, for the certification 
procedure that CARB uses for vapor recovery equipment. The correct 
reference is California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 17, section 
94011.] Section 5.5.11 is deleted, since the reference is not required.
    [sbull] [Section 6.1 should require that maintenance records and 
reverification of performance test records be kept with a retention 
period of at least two years.] Sections 6.1.3, 6.1.4, and 6.1.5 require 
a records retention period of at least two years.
    [sbull] [Section 6.2.2, which required that certified vapor 
recovery systems be tested with 60 days of installation or major 
modification, is deleted. This is less stringent than the SIP-approved 
rule. Performance testing of vapor recovery equipment should start 
within 30 days of completion of construction of vapor recovery 
equipment.] Section 6.2.1 requires that the Static Leak Test and the 
Dynamic Back Pressure Test be performed prior to or during the month 
designated as the expiration date in the Permit-to-Operate.
    [sbull] [Section 6.3.1 should reference the specific EPA-approved 
test method to be used for performance tests and reverification of 
performance tests for an Air-to-Liquid Volume Ratio Test.] Section 
6.3.1 lists the four common test methods to be used, including the Air-
to-Liquid Volume Ratio Test.
    [sbull] [Reverification of the performance tests of the vapor 
recovery system originally required by the CARB Executive Order should 
be performed more frequently. EPA recommends once every six months or, 
if In-Station Diagnostics are used, once every two years.] Section 
6.2.1 requires reverification of performance tests every 12 months for 
the Static Leak Test and Dynamic Back-Pressure Test and every 6 months 
for the Air-to-Liquid Volume Ratio Test. We consider the 6- or 12-month 
intervals to be reasonable for reverification tests in the SJVUAPCD. 
The Liquid Removal Rate Test must be performed whenever the amount of 
liquid in the vapor path exceeds 100 ml.

C. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so 
we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we 
receive adverse comments by April 23, 2003, 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 May 23, 2003. This will incorporate these 
rules into the federally-enforceable SIP.
    Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this direct final rule and if that provision 
may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final 
those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse 
comment.

III. Background Information

Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone, smog, and particulate matter 
which harm human health and the environment. EPA has established 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone. Section 
110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations in order to 
achieve and maintain the NAAQS. Table 2 lists some of the national 
milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency VOC rules.

                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.
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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, 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 by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does 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

[[Page 14159]]

responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified 
in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action 
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 CAA. This rule also is not subject 
to Executive Order 13045, ``Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because 
it is not economically significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. In this 
context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State 
to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to 
disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the CAA. Thus, the requirements of section 
12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 
(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an 
information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 23, 2003. 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: February 13, 2003.
Alexis Straus,
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 paragraphs (c)(307) and 
(308) to read as follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (307) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on November 19, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 449, adopted on February 5, 1975 and amended on September 
26, 2002.
    (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 4622, adopted on May 21, 1992 and amended on September 19, 
2002.
* * * * *
    (308) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on December 12, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 8-7, amended on November 6, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-6810 Filed 3-21-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P