[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54559-54561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-26068]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 226-165a; FRL-6448-5]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution
Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan. This action revises Santa Barbara
County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) Rule 102, Definitions,
to include text that was inadvertently omitted and revises the volatile
organic compound (VOC) definition in South Coast Air Quality Management
District (SCAQMD) Rule 102, Definition of Terms. The intended effect of
approving this action is to incorporate changes to the definitions for
clarity and consistency with revised federal and state definitions.
DATES: This rule is effective on December 6, 1999, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 8, 1999. If
EPA receives such comment, then it will publish a timely withdrawal in
the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take
effect.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at Region IX
office listed below. Copies of these rules, along with 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
requests for 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,
SW, Washington, DC 20460
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian Drive
B-23, Goleta, California 93117
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
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 rules being approved into the California SIP are: SBCAPCD Rule
102, Definitions, and SCAQMD Rule 102, Definition of Terms, submitted
on May 13, 1999 by the California Air Resources Board.
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 Santa Barbara County and
the South Coast Air Basin, see 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26,
1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section
110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that the Santa Barbara County APCD and
South Coast AQMD portions of the California SIP were inadequate to
attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies
in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). In response to the
SIP call and other requirements, the SBCAPCD and SCAQMD submitted many
rules which EPA approved into the SIP.
This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for SBCAPCD Rule
102, Definitions, and SCAQMD Rule 102, Definition of Terms. These rules
were adopted by SBCAPCD and SCAQMD on January 21, 1999 and June 12,
1998, respectively. These rules were found to be complete on June 10,
1999, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40
CFR part 51, appendix V 1 and is being finalized for
approval into the SIP. These rules were originally adopted as part of
SBCAPCD and SCAQMD's efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call
and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section (110)(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following is EPA's evaluation and final action for these rules.
III. EPA Evaluation and Action
In determining the approvability of a rule, EPA must evaluate the
rule 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
appears in various EPA policy guidance documents.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of
those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues
Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviation,
Clarification to appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register
document'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the
Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control
technique guidelines (CTGs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA previously reviewed many rules from the SBCAPCD and SCAQMD
agencies and incorporated them into the federally approved SIP pursuant
to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. The following revisions were made in
SBCAPCD and SCAQMD definitions rule:
Santa Barbara County APCD
On March 26, 1999, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 102,
Definitions that had been adopted by SBCAPCD on March 10, 1998. SBCAPCD
submitted Rule 102, Definitions includes the following changes from the
current SIP:
Rule 102 has been revised by reinserting text inadvertently omitted
during the April 1997 comprehensive revisions to the District's
permitting regulations.
South Coast AQMD
On March 26, 1999, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 102,
Definition of Terms that had been adopted by SCAQMD on June 13, 1997.
SCAQMD submitted Rule 102, Definitions of Terms includes the following
changes from the current SIP:
The March 13, 1998 amendments add difluoromethane (HFC-32),
1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane
(C4F9OCH3), 2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)-
1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
[(CF3)2CFCF2OCH3], 1-
ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane
(C4F9OC2H5), and 2-
(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane
[(CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5
]
[[Page 54560]]
to the definition of Rule 102, Definition of Terms.
The June 12, 1998 amendments add parachlorobenzotrifluoride
(PCBTF), ethylfluoride (HFC-161), 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC-
236fa), 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca), 1,1,2,3,3-
pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea), 1,1,1,2,3-pentaflurorpropane (HFC-
245eb), 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa), 1,1,1,2,3,3-
hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea), 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC-
365mfc), chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31), 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-
trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a), and 1 chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a) to
the definition of Rule 102, Definition of Terms.
Rule 102 has been revised to update the definition of ``Exempt
Organic Compounds'' to be consistent with the most recent federal and
state definitions changes. See 62 FR 44900.
EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they
are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy.
Therefore, SBCAPCD Rule 102, Definitions and SCAQMD Rule 102,
Definition of Terms, are being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the
CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D. Future
action by EPA on prohibitory, new source review, or other SBCAPCD rules
may require changes to these definitions.
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
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective
December 6, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives
relevant adverse comments by November 8, 1999.
If the EPA received such comments, then EPA will publish a notice
withdrawing the final rule and 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 on this rule. Any parties interested
in commenting on the this rule should do so at this time. If no such
comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be
effective on December 6, 1999 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 (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
[[Page 54561]]
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. 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 December 6, 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 compounds.
Dated: September 10, 1999.
David P. Howekamp,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, Chapter I, Title of 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)(263)(i)(A)(2)
and (B) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(263) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(2) Rule 102 adopted on February 4, 1977 and amended on June 12,
1998.
(B) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 102 adopted on January 21, 1999.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-26068 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
