[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 53210-53212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-25568]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 033-0171; FRL-6446-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado County Air Pollution
Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
proposed in the Federal Register on April 4, 1994. This final action
will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP. The
intended effect of finalizing this action is to regulate emissions of
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in accordance with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The revised
rules control VOC emissions from the loading, unloading, and storage of
petroleum products. EPA is finalizing a simultaneous limited approval
and limited disapproval under CAA provisions regarding EPA action on
SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority because these
revisions, while strengthening the SIP, also do not fully meet the CAA
provisions regarding plan submissions and requirements for
nonattainment areas. As a result of this limited disapproval EPA will
be required to impose highway funding or emission offset sanctions
under the CAA unless the State submits and EPA approves corrections to
the identified deficiencies within 18 months of the effective date of
this disapproval. Moreover, EPA will be required to promulgate a
Federal implementation plan (FIP) unless the deficiencies are corrected
within 24 months of the effective date of this disapproval.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on November 1, 1999.
ADDRESSES: 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 also 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 95814
El Dorado Air Pollution Control District, 7553 Green Valley Road,
Placerville, CA 95667-4197.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Max Fantillo, Rulemaking Office, (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1183.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of a
revision to the California SIP submitted by El Dorado County Air
Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD) entitled Regulation IX, Air Toxic
Control Measures, Section A, Benzene, Rules 900 through 914. This
regulation was submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB)
to EPA on April 5, 1991.
II. Background
On April 4, 1994 in 64 FR 15686, EPA proposed granting a limited
approval and limited disapproval of EDCAPCD Regulation IX, Air Toxic
Control Measure, Section A, Benzene, (Rules 900 through 914) into the
California SIP. These 900 series rules were adopted by EDCAPCD on
September 18, 1990 and submitted by the CARB to EPA on April 5, 1991.
The rules were submitted in response to EPA's 1988 SIP Call and the CAA
section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement that nonattainment areas fix their
reasonably available control technology (RACT) rules for ozone in
accordance with EPA guidance that interpreted the requirements of the
pre-amendment Act. A detailed discussion of the background for each of
the above rules and nonattainment areas is provided in the proposed
rule (PR) cited above.
EPA has evaluated all of the above rules for consistency with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA's interpretation of
these requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance
documents referenced in the PR. EPA is finalizing the limited approval
of these rules in order to strengthen the SIP and finalizing the
limited disapproval requiring the correction of the remaining
deficiencies. In summary, the deficiencies relate to the lack of a
specific definition of the facilities to which the rules apply,
improper definition of test methods, Control Officer discretion to
require unspecified control equipment, and a higher throughput
exemption than allowed by section 182(b)(3). These deficiencies must be
corrected pursuant to the requirements of sections 182(a)(2)(A) and
part D of the CAA. A detailed discussion of the rule provisions and
evaluations has been provided in the PR and in technical support
document (TSD) available at EPA's Region IX office (TSD dated April 30,
1993, Regulation IX, Rules 900 through 914).
III. Response to Public Comments
A 30-day public comment period was provided in 59 FR 15686; EPA did
not receive any comments.
IV. EPA Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval of the
above-referenced rules. The limited approval of these rules is being
finalized 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 in the sense that the
rules strengthen the SIP. However, the rules do not meet the section
182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because of the rule deficiencies which
were discussed in the PR. Thus, in order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is
granting limited approval of these rules under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the CAA. This action approves the rules into the SIP as
federally enforceable rules.
[[Page 53211]]
At the same time, EPA is finalizing the limited disapproval of
these rules because they contain deficiencies that have not been
corrected as required by section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as such,
the rules do not fully meet the requirements of Part D of the Act. As
stated in the proposed rule, upon the effective date of this final
rule, the 18 month clock for sanctions and the 24 month FIP clock will
begin. Sections 179(a) and 110(c). If the State does not submit the
required corrections and EPA does not approve the submittal within 18
months of the effective date of the final rule, either the highway
sanction or the offset sanction will be imposed at the 18 month mark.
It should be noted that the rules covered by this FR have been adopted
by the EDCAPCD and are currently in effect in the EDCAPCD. EPA's
limited disapproval action will not prevent a EDCAPCD or EPA from
enforcing these rules.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review.
B. Executive Order 12875
Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875
do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
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 E.O.
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 E.O. 13045 because it is
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
D. 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
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
E.O. 13084 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
[[Page 53212]]
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. This rule is not a
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
H. 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 November 30, 1999. 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 compound.
Nora L. McGee,
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 paragraph (c)(183)(H)(1) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(183) * * *
(i) * * *
(H) El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Regulation IX, Rules 900 through 914, adopted September 18,
1990.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-25568 Filed 9-30-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
