[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 218 (Friday, November 8, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 57775-57780]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-28594]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 078-2-0016; FRL-5642-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval
of revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed
in the Federal Register on February 28, 1995. The revisions concern
rules from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD).
This final action will incorporate these rules into the federally
approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rules is to
regulate emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and oxides of
sulfur (SOX) in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air
Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The rules concern the control
of NOX emissions from facilities in the SCAQMD with four or more
tons of NOX or SOX emissions per year from permitted
equipment. The subject facilities, in order to meet annual emission
reduction requirements, will participate in an economic incentive
program (EIP) in order to reduce emissions at a significantly lower
cost. This document also serves to respond to comments received from
the public on the February 28, 1995 notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on December 9, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report for
each rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions
are available for inspection at the following locations:
[[Page 57776]]
Rulemaking Section (A-5-3), Air and Toxics 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 92123-1095.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Israels, Rulemaking Section,
(A-5-3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone:
(415) 744-1194.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On February 28, 1995 in 60 FR 10819, EPA proposed granting limited
approval and limited disapproval of the following rules into the
California SIP: South Coast Air Quality Management District, Regulation
XX, NOX and SOX Regional Clean Air Incentives Market
(RECLAIM). Regulation XX was adopted by SCAQMD on October 13, 1993.
This rule was submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA on
March 21, 1994. These rules were adopted as part of South Coast Air
Quality Management District's efforts to achieve the National Ambient
Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and in response to section
182(f) NOX reasonably available control technology (RACT)
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA). A detailed discussion of the
background for each of the above rules and nonattainment areas is
provided in the NPRM cited above.
In the NPRM, EPA proposed conditionally approving RECLAIM provided
that the SCAQMD submitted an enforceable commitment within one year of
publication of the NPRM to correct the deficiencies cited. EPA did not
receive an enforceable commitment from SCAQMD within one year of the
publication of the NPRM, therefore EPA is finalizing, as proposed in
the alternative in the NPRM, a simultaneous limited approval and
limited disapproval under 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.
On August 28, 1996 the State of California submitted revisions to
EPA which EPA believes address all of the deficiencies cited in the
February 28, 1995 NPRM. Therefore, EPA is proposing elsewhere in the
Federal Register today to approve into the SIP the August 28, 1996
submittal which addresses the cited deficiencies. The final approval of
the August 28, 1996 submittal will supersede the limited disapproval of
the March 21, 1994 submittal and remove the possibility of sanctions
associated with this limited approval/limited disapproval noted above.
EPA has evaluated the above rule 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 NPRM. 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. The NOX and SOX RECLAIM program contains the
following deficiencies:
the program allows the use of variances to avoid
compliance with program requirements; this results in the program
failing to meet the requirements of section 110(i) of the Act,
the program does not meet certain new source review (NSR)
requirements of the Act and Part D,
the program allows the use of Executive Officer discretion
in the implementation of certain emissions monitoring provisions; this
results in the program failing to meet the requirements of section
110(i) of the Act,
the program's references to other programs, notably those
involving the use of mobile source emission reduction credits (MERCs)
is inconsistent with section 110(i) of the Act, and
the submittal does not provide all of the necessary
demonstrations to ensure that the requirements of EPA's EIP rules are
being met.
A detailed discussion of the rule provisions and evaluations has
been provided in the NPRM and in the technical support document (TSD)
available at EPA's Region IX office (TSD dated February, 1995). On
August 28, 1996 the State of California submitted revisions to EPA
which EPA believes address all of the deficiencies cited in the
February 28, 1995 NPRM. Therefore, EPA is proposing elsewhere in the
Federal Register today to approve into the SIP the August 28, 1996
submittal which addresses the cited deficiencies.
Response to Public Comments
A 30-day public comment period was provided in 60 FR 10819. EPA
received comments on a wide range of issues including the approval of
the overall program. Four industry commentors supported full approval
of the program, one environmental group opposed approval of the
program, and one regulatory agency supported resolving program issues
identified by EPA in the conditional approval and approving the
program. EPA agrees with the commentors supporting approval of a
federally enforceable RECLAIM program and is optimistic that such a
program will lead to emission reductions necessary to achieve
attainment of the ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS)
in the SCAQMD.
EPA also received specific comments from the public on the
following issues: (1) program definitions, (2) NSR, (3) the use of
variances in the program, (4) the use of MERCs in the program, (5) EIP
rule demonstrations, (6) monitoring requirements, (7) environmental
justice, (8) planning requirements, (9) public participation, (10) the
program's penalty structure, and (11) RACT. Following are EPA's
responses to these more specific comments:
1. Program Definitions
Comments: Two industry groups disagreed with EPA's request to
modify or add definitions to RECLAIM to ensure that federal
requirements relating primarily to NSR were being met.
Response: EPA believes that the definitions cited are necessary to
demonstrate that the fundamental requirements of NSR programs are being
met. For example, the construction-related definitions cited as
deficiencies in the NPRM are necessary to ensure that the statutory
offset provisions found in Section 182 of the CAA are being met.
Throughout the TSD, EPA cited the appropriate federal requirements to
ensure that the rationale for requiring modification or addition of key
definitions was clear.
With respect to specific comments made regarding construction
definitions, EPA believes that there is a fundamental need to address
such definitions, via rule language or legal interpretation, in
programs like RECLAIM which implement NSR requirements via trading
mechanisms.
[[Page 57777]]
2. NSR Issues
a. Offset Ratios and Tracking System:
Comments: One environmental group commented that the NSR offset
ratio for South Coast sources should be greater than 1:1. Two industry
commentors commented that a tracking system is not necessary to ensure
that the statutory offset ratio is being met by sources in South Coast
in the aggregate.
Response: EPA believes that the statutory offset ratios (1.5:1 or
1.2:1 if all major sources apply best available control technology--
BACT) in an extreme ozone nonattainment area should be maintained. EPA
believes that this requirement can be met on an aggregate basis. [See
discussion in EIP preamble at 59 FR 16696, dated April 7, 1994] In
order to meet this requirement, as EPA noted in its NPRM, a tracking
system is necessary to demonstrate that the statutory offset ratios are
met. The purpose of the tracking system would be to demonstrate that a
balance of reductions between non-major and major sources both in
RECLAIM and outside of RECLAIM achieved the statutory NSR offset ratio
(considering factors such as the RECLAIM declining mass emissions cap).
b. NSR Analysis on a Trade-by-trade Basis:
Comment: One industry commentor stated that EPA's proposed approval
would lead to a NSR analysis on a trade-by-trade basis in RECLAIM.
Response: EPA's understanding of RECLAIM NSR is that NSR
requirements do not, with respect to the need to purchase offsetting
emissions, need to be examined on a trade-by-trade basis. The NSR
offset requirements would only be triggered if a particular facility
exceeded its initial RECLAIM allocation plus nontradeable emission
allocation. However, the NSR lowest achievable emission rate (LAER)
requirement is one which needs to be examined on a trade-by-trade basis
when such trades increase emissions at an emissions unit. In these
instances, while NSR offsets may not be necessary, LAER must still be
applied to the emissions unit.
c. Incorporation of the Requirements of 40 CFR 51.164 into RECLAIM:
Comment: One industry commentor did not believe that the Stack
height procedures found in 40 CFR 51.164 needed to be incorporated into
the RECLAIM rules.
Response: NSR regulations must state that sources may not affect
their emissions by erecting a stack that does not meet the Stack height
requirements found in Section 123 of the CAA and in 40 CFR 51.164. EPA
disagrees with the commentor.
3. The Use of Variances in the RECLAIM Program
Comment: Two industry commentors want the use of variances from
program requirements in the program while one environmental group wants
the use of variances out of the program.
Response: Section 110(i) of the Clean Air Act prohibits the use of
variances to change the federally-enforceable SIP. EPA agrees with the
environmental group commentor in that the use of such mechanisms in a
market system may be detrimental to the system's achievement of clean
air goals.
4. The Use of Mobile Source Emission Reduction Credits (MERCs) in the
Program
Comment: One industry group does not believe MERC rules need to be
SIP approved prior to being used in RECLAIM while one environmental
group believes that MERCs can not be used in RECLAIM regardless of SIP
approval.
Response: EPA believes that MERCs can be used in the RECLAIM
program as a means of compliance with the RECLAIM mass emissions cap.
However, the use of MERCs generated using rules which have not been SIP
approved raises an issue of whether such uses are consistent with the
federally-enforceable SIP. EPA believes that if the underlying rules
used to generate MERCs for RECLAIM compliance purposes have not been
SIP-approved, the credits are not federally-enforceable. EPA believes
that the District and EPA can work out a satisfactory solution on this
issue which provides facilities using such unapproved MERCs notice that
such credits are not federally enforceable (until the particular MERC-
generating rule(s) are approved into the SIP) and consequently users of
such credits may be subject to federal enforcement action.
5. EIP Rule Demonstrations
Comment: One industry group does not believe that the environmental
benefit demonstration found at 40 CFR 51.493(e)(1)(ii) is needed as
other program elements address this issue while one environmental group
does not believe that the program as a whole meets the EIP
requirements.
Response: With respect to the environmental benefit demonstration,
the package EPA proposed for action on February 28, 1995 did not
address this issue and therefore did not meet the EIP requirements.
However, EPA believes that, given the RECLAIM declining caps' rate of
reduction goes beyond existing RACT requirements, the environmental
benefit provision in the EIP can be met as a result of the program's
design.
With respect to the program as a whole meeting the EIP
demonstration requirements, EPA agrees that some of the requirements
were not met and therefore cited these demonstrations in the NPRM and
February, 1995 TSD as deficiencies.
6. Monitoring Requirements
Comment: One industry commentor did not support using the SIP-
approval mechanism to incorporate changes to RECLAIM monitoring
requirements into the federally-approved SIP.
Response: EPA intends to use the SIP-approval mechanism to
incorporate changes to monitoring requirements in RECLAIM into the
federally-enforceable SIP. In the future, if a generic set of criteria
to determine the approvability of monitoring changes is developed, EPA
may reconsider its position, provided such criteria are SIP-approved.
Section 110(i) of the Clean Air Act does not allow such changes to
become federally-enforceable without a SIP revision.
7. Environmental Justice
Comment: One environmental group does not believe that EPA
considered RECLAIM's environmental justice impacts in its proposed
action.
Response: RECLAIM is a program designed to reduce ozone precursor
emissions from stationary sources. As such, it is designed to address
the area-wide ozone issue in the Los Angeles area, not the localized
toxics impacts issue. As the SCAQMD develops regulations which regulate
toxic emissions, EPA will review those regulations under section 112 of
the Clean Air Act. With respect to the concern that RECLAIM may
incidentally increase toxic emissions as a result of trading, the
RECLAIM program, as noted in the NPRM, meets the requirements of
Section 182(e)(3) of the CAA which requires clean fuels or advanced
controls for boilers which emit greater than 25 tons per year of
NOX (see the February, 1995 TSD). The majority of emissions which
can potentially be traded in RECLAIM are covered by this clean fuels/
advanced controls requirement (see RECLAIM supporting documentation).
As a result, the bulk of RECLAIM emissions (including toxic emissions)
will be controlled to a high degree through compliance with Section
182(e)(3) of the CAA, which can not be met through trading. Further,
SCAQMD examined the toxic impacts of RECLAIM (see pages EX-14 and 15
and EX-29 and 5-31 of Volume 1 of the RECLAIM documentation); this
analysis
[[Page 57778]]
shows that there will be no increase in toxic air pollutants as a
result of the trading of NOX and SOX under the RECLAIM
program. EPA has reviewed the SCAQMD analysis and agrees with its
conclusions that there will be little, if any, impact on local
communities as a result of trading in RECLAIM as most of the products
of incomplete combustion (combustion is the primary source of NOX
emissions in RECLAIM) are not classified as hazardous air pollutants
(HAPs). For those incomplete combustion products which are classified
as HAPs, their impact on local communities will be addressed in the
SCAQMD's and EPA's toxic control strategies (see Section 112 of the
CAA). EPA believes that, as a result of each of these factors (Section
182(e)(3) of the CAA controls and State, local, and federal measures to
control toxics) in the program design, EPA's approval of RECLAIM is
consistent with the goals set out in Executive Order 12898, which
provides the framework for federal agencies to address environmental
justice issues.
8. Planning Requirements
a. RECLAIM and the 1991 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) and
reasonable further progress (RFP):
Comment: One environmental group believes that the program is less
effective than the 1991 AQMP and that it will not show RFP.
Response: EPA's decision to approve NOX/SOX RECLAIM is
based on the District's lack of federally approved rules regulating
these source categories, not on the 1991 AQMP which had, at the time of
submittal, not been approved. The RECLAIM program, from this
perspective, strengthens the federally enforceable SIP and is more
effective than measures in an unapproved attainment plan. Further, the
test for the effectiveness of an attainment plan under Section
182(c)(2) does not rely on a single measure to demonstrate attainment,
but relies on all of the measures in the plan used to achieve
attainment. As with the comment regarding RECLAIM and the 1991 AQMP,
the RECLAIM program alone does not have to demonstrate compliance with
the CAA's RFP requirements. In Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the CAA, RFP is
defined over the period of 1990 to 1996 in terms of VOC emission
reductions; after 1996, NOX emission reductions may be substituted
for VOC emission reductions. EPA disagrees with the commentor that
RECLAIM does not meet RFP requirements as individual measures do not
shoulder the burden of meeting requirements taken on by an entire
progress showing.
b. Baselines:
Comment: One environmental group believes that the baselines have
been inflated causing the program to fail to meet planning
requirements.
Response: EPA recognizes the need for EIPs to address economic
inequities in the design of such programs. In the case of RECLAIM, as
the commentor has pointed out, baselines for some facilities may have
been established in recognition of such inequities. Provided that
increases in emissions resulting from the recognition of these
inequities are addressed, then there should be no failure of the SCAQMD
to meet the CAA planning requirements. As noted elsewhere in this
notice, individual measures in an attainment plan need not meet
specific CAA planning requirements as long as the plan as a whole
demonstrates attainment.
9. Public Participation
Comment: One environmental group believes that the program does not
provide enough public participation.
Response: EPA believes that RECLAIM afforded the public ample
opportunity to comment during the design of the program and affords the
public ample opportunity to participate during the implementation of
the program via the permitting and auditing processes. The development
of RECLAIM used a public process almost unprecedented in the history of
air quality regulatory development. Over a three year period a steering
committee, an advisory committee, and a myriad of workgroups dealing
with such issues as socio-economic impacts, allocations (baselines),
and energy impacts met on a regular basis. RECLAIM was adopted by the
SCAQMD Governing Board after a two-session hearing, during which issues
such as the baseline-setting procedures, environmental justice, NSR,
public participation, and enforcement were discussed. In addition, the
RECLAIM permitting process conforms to the CAA's NSR and Title V
permitting requirements for public review.
10. Penalty Structure
Comment: One environmental group believes that the penalty
structure is too lenient.
Response: In crafting the RECLAIM emission violation penalty
structure, EPA, the SCAQMD, and members of the RECLAIM Steering
Committee conducted a thorough analysis of what penalties for such
violations are appropriate. In this analysis, the group sought to
define appropriate penalties by examining the level of deterrence
necessary to discourage noncompliance with applicable emission limits.
EPA examined the history of enforcement of a variety of federal CAA
programs to discover what level of deterrence has been historically
effective. The group also linked the market mechanism to the amount of
statutory maximum penalties in the RECLAIM program. EPA believes that a
penalty structure which is based on the mass exceedance of the emission
cap like the one in RECLAIM is suitable for this particular type of
program. The results of this analysis led to the RECLAIM penalty
scheme.
11. RACT
a. RACT aggregation:
Comment: One environmental group believes that RACT aggregation
violates the Act.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commentor. This issue was
thoroughly explored in the final EIP rule. In the preamble to the final
EIP rule EPA states:
``An EIP may allow sources subject to the RACT requirement to
attain RACT-level emissions reductions in the aggregate, * * *''
[See 59 FR 16695, dated April 7, 1994]
Further, the EIP preamble states:
``Under the EPA's interpretation, the application of the
requirement to impose RACT upon ``existing sources'' meant that RACT
applied in the aggregate, as opposed to source by source. This
interpretation, which is reflected in the Emissions Trading Policy
Statement [51 FR 43814 (December 4, 1986), the ``Bubble Policy''],
was upheld in NRDC v. EPA, 33 ERC 1657 (4th Cir. 1991), an
unpublished decision.'' [See 59 FR 16703, dated April 7, 1994]
Finally, the final EIP rule preamble states:
``Under the 1990 Act, the EPA continues to take the position
established under the 1977 Act that RACT applies in the aggregate
because the RACT requirement of section 172(c)(1) of the Act is
phrased identically to the RACT requirement of the 1977 Act (vis.,
``existing sources''). EPA does not read section 182(b)(2) to
indicate to the contrary. Rather, the cross-reference to section
172(c)(1) contained in section 182(b)(2) indicates that RACT is to
be interpreted in the same manner under section 182(b)(2) as under
section 172(c)(1).'' [See 59 FR 16703-16704, dated April 7, 1994]
b. Long term averaging to meet RACT:
Comment: One environmental group believes that long term averaging
to meet RACT violates the Act.
Response: EPA disagrees with the commentor. In the preamble to the
final EIP rule EPA states:
``The final rules retain the proposed allowance for long-term
emissions
[[Page 57779]]
averaging, as well as requirements that States make statistical
showings that any such emissions averaging is consistent with
applicable RACT, RFP, and short-term NAAQS. These statistical showings
are necessary to show equivalency to, or noninterference with, each of
these statutory requirements, although as a practical matter the same
showing may suffice to assure consistency with more than one of the
requirements. The statistical showings should take into account the
extent to which emissions variations from an individual source or from
all sources are random or systematic and, thus, the extent to which the
variations can be considered to be independent. The showings must
demonstrate that the pattern of emissions resulting from relaxed
averaging periods would approximate the pattern of emissions that would
occur without relaxed averaging periods to an extent sufficient to
reasonably conclude that the relaxed averaging periods would not
interfere with the statutory requirements.'' [See 59 FR 16706, dated
April 7, 1994]
EPA Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of
the above-referenced rule. 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 NPRM. 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.
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 NPR, upon the effective date of this NFR, 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 NFR, either the highway sanction or the offset sanction will be
imposed at the 18 month mark. It should be noted that the rule covered
by this NFRM has been adopted by the SCAQMD and is currently in effect
in the SCAQMD. EPA's limited disapproval action will not prevent SCAQMD
or EPA from enforcing this rule.
On August 28, 1996 the State of California submitted revisions to
EPA which EPA believes address all of the deficiencies cited in the
February 28, 1995 NPRM. Therefore, EPA is proposing elsewhere in the
Federal Register today to approve into the SIP the August 28, 1996
submittal which addresses the cited deficiencies. The final approval of
the August 28, 1996 submittal will supersede the limited disapproval of
the March 21, 1994 submittal and remove the possibility of sanctions
associated with this limited approval/limited disapproval noted above.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship
under the CAA, preparation of a 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).
C. 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
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 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
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local,
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will result from this
action.
D. Submission to Congress and the General Accounting Office
Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added by the Small Business
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA submitted 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
General Accounting Office prior to publication of the rule in today's
Federal Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5
U.S.C. 804(2).
E. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States
[[Page 57780]]
Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by January 7, 1997. 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, Nitrogen
oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compound.
Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.
Dated: October 6, 1996.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator.
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. 7401-7671q.
Subpart F--California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(232) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(232) New regulations for the following APCD were submitted on
March 21, 1994, by the Governor's designee:
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) South Coast Air Quality Management District.
(1) Regulation XX, adopted October 15, 1993.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-28594 Filed 11-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
