[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 244 (Tuesday, December 21, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 76417-76420]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-27883]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AZ 134-082, CA 250-0453, CA 310-0465; FRL-7847-6]


Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan, Maricopa 
County Environmental Services Department; Revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan, South Coast Air Quality Management District; 
Disapproval of State Implementation Plan Revisions, Monterey Bay 
Unified Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing approval of revisions to the Maricopa County 
Environmental Services Department (MCESD) portion of the Arizona State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) and revisions to the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) portion of the California SIP. The 
revisions for MCESD were proposed in the Federal Register on September 
30, 2004, and concern volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from 
solvent cleaning. The revisions for SCAQMD were proposed in the Federal 
Register on September 14, 2004, and concern oxides of nitrogen 
(NOX) and oxides of sulfur (SOX) emissions from 
facilities emitting 4 tons or more per year of NOX and/or 
SOX under the SCAQMD Regional Clean Air Incentives Market 
(RECLAIM). We are approving local rules that regulate these emission 
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
    EPA is also finalizing disapproval of a revision to the Monterey 
Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This

[[Page 76418]]

action was proposed in the Federal Register on June 1, 2004, and 
concerns excess emissions during breakdown. There are no sanctions 
associated with this disapproval.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 20, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this 
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours by 
appointment. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions by 
appointment at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail 
Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 1110 W. Washington 
Sttreet, Phoenix, AZ 85007.
Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, 1001 N. Central 
Avenue, Suite 695, Phoenix, AZ 85004.

    A copy of MCESD Rule 331 may also be available via the Internet at 
http://www.maricopa.gov/envsvc/AIR/ruledesc.asp. Copies of SCAQMD Rule 
2015 and MBUAPCD Rule 214 may be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that these are not 
EPA websites and may not contain the same versions of the rules that 
were submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco D[oacute][ntilde]ez, EPA 
Region IX, (415) 972-3956, [email protected].

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

I. Proposed Action

    On September 20, 2004 (69 FR 58375), and September 14, 2004 (69 FR 
55386), respectively, EPA proposed to approve the following rules into 
the Arizona SIP (MCESD 331) and the California SIP (SCAQMD 2015).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD..............................             331  Solvent Cleaning...........        04/21/04        07/28/04
SCAQMD.............................            2015  Backstop Provisions........        06/04/04        07/29/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to approve these rules because we determined that they 
complied with the relevant CAA requirements. Our proposed action 
contains more information on the rules and our evaluation.
    On June 1, 2004 (69 FR 30845), EPA proposed to disapprove the 
following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the California 
SIP.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                  Rule                Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBUAPCD............................             214  Breakdown Condition........        03/21/01        10/30/01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed to disapprove this rule because some rule provisions 
conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act. These provisions deal 
with district enforcement discretion. EPA considers it unproductive and 
potentially confusing to approve an enforcement discretion rule into 
the SIP.
    Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this 
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period for 
each of these actions. We received no comments on any of these actions 
during the respective comment periods.

III. EPA Action

    No comments were submitted that change our assessment that MCESD 
Rule 331 and SCAQMD Rule 2015 comply with the relevant CAA 
requirements. Therefore, as authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, 
EPA is fully approving these rules into the Arizona SIP (MCESD Rule 
331) and the California SIP (SCAQMD Rule 2015).
    No comments were submitted that change our assessment of MBUAPCD 
Rule 214 as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized 
in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is finalizing a full disapproval 
of the submitted rule. Because this is not a required submittal, there 
are no sanctions associated with this disapproval. Note that the 
submitted rule has been adopted by the MBUAPCD, and EPA's final 
disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing it.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

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

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

    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.)

C. 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 rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals and disapprovals under 
section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create 
any new requirements but simply approve or disapprove requirements that 
the States are already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP 
action 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.

[[Page 76419]]

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under sections 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 
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 and disapproval actions 
promulgated do 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 approves or disapproves 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.

E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    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 approves or disapproves state rules implementing federal 
standards, 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.

F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' This final rule does not have 
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not 
apply to this rule.

G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    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.

H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use

    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.

I. 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.

J. Congressional Review Act

    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). This rule will be effective January 20, 2005.

K. 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 February 22, 2005. 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

[[Page 76420]]

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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: November 18, 2004.
Jane Diamond,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart D--Arizona

0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(117) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.120  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (117) Amended regulation was submitted on July 28, 2004, by the 
Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Maricopa County Environmental Services Department.
    (1) Rule 331 adopted on April 21, 2004.
* * * * *

Subpart F--California

0
3. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(333) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (333) New and amended regulations for the following AQMD were 
submitted on July 29, 2004, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
    (1) Rule 2015 adopted on October 15, 1993 and amended on June 4, 
2004.

0
4. Section 52.271 is amended by adding paragraph (b)(7) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.271  Malfunction, startup, and shutdown regulations.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (7) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (i) Rule 214, Breakdown Condition, submitted on October 30, 2001.
* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04-27883 Filed 12-20-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P