[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 6228-6231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2782]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 207-0114a; FRL-6229-7]
Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;
California State Implementation Plan Revision; Amador County Air
Pollution Control District and Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution
Control 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 (SIP). The revisions concern rules
from the Amador County Air Pollution Control District (ACAPCD) and the
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD). This
action will remove these rules from the federally approved SIP. The
intended effect of this action is to remove rules from the SIP in
accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Thus, EPA is finalizing the removal of these rules from the California
SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals
and SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality
standards.
DATES: This rule is effective on April 12, 1999, without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 11, 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 the Region
IX office listed below. Copies of these rules, along with EPA's
evaluation
[[Page 6229]]
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 rescission 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 95812.
Amador County Air Pollution Control District, 500 Argonaut Lane,
Jackson, CA 95642.
Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, 150 Matheson
Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448-4908.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1199.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The ACAPCD rules being removed from the California SIP are: Rule
213.2, Organic Solvents; and Rule 213.3, Disposal and Evaporation of
Solvents. The NSCAPCD rules being removed from the California SIP are:
Rule 56, Sulfide Emission Standard; Rule 64, Organic Solvents; Rule
64.1, Architectural Coatings; and Rule 64.2, Disposal and Evaporation
of Solvents. The ACAPCD adopted Rules 213.2 and 213.3 on July 18, 1972
and repealed them on June 16, 1981. The NSCAPCD adopted Rules 56, 64,
64.1, and 64.2 on June 30, 1972 and repealed them on November 10, 1976.
On September 30, 1997 and October 7, 1997, the ACAPCD and NSCAPCD's
Boards of Directors respectively adopted resolutions requesting the
removal of these rules from the California SIP. The California Air
Resources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA both Districts' requests for
removal of these rules from the SIP on March 10, 1998.
II. Background
On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of the ozone and sulfur
dioxide attainment areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as
amended in 1977 (1977 Act or pre-amended Act). 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR
81.305. The Amador County Area was included among the areas in
attainment for ozone and the North Coast Air Basin Area, which
encompasses Northern Sonoma County, was included among the areas in
attainment for ozone and sulfur dioxide. The rules being addressed in
this action were originally adopted by the ACAPCD and the NSCAPCD as
part of their efforts to maintain the National Ambient Air Quality
Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and sulfur dioxide. These rules were
originally adopted to control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions
from organic solvents, architectural coatings, and the disposal and
evaporation of solvents and to provide a sulfide emission standard.
Because the Amador County and North Coast Air Basin Areas have never
been classified as nonattainment pursuant to Section 107 of the Act for
the pollutants listed above, these rules were not required by the Act.
The ACAPCD and NSCAPCD removed these rules from their district rule
books on June 16, 1981 and November 10, 1976, respectively. The ACAPCD
and NSCAPCD have certified through resolutions adopted by their Boards
of Directors on September 30, 1997 and October 7, 1997 that rescission
of these rules will not result in emissions increases or otherwise
interfere with any applicable provisions of the CAA.
On March 10, 1998, ACAPCD and NSCAPCD submitted requests to EPA,
through CARB, for the removal of ACAPCD Rules 213.2 and 213.3 and
NSCAPCD Rules 56, 64, 64.1, and 64.2 from the California SIP.
III. EPA Action
The following ACAPCD rules rescinded by today's action were
previously approved into the California SIP by EPA:
--Rule 213.2, Organic Solvents, adopted July 18, 1972, approved January
24, 1978 (43 FR 3275).
--Rule 213.3, Disposal and Evaporation of Solvents, adopted July 18,
1972, approved January 24, 1978 (43 FR 3275).
The following NSCAPCD rules rescinded by today's action were
previously approved into the California SIP by EPA:
--Rule 56, Sulfide Emission Standard, adopted June 30, 1972, approved
September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).
--Rule 64, Organic Solvents, adopted June 30, 1972, approved September
22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).
--Rule 64.1, Architectural Coatings, adopted June 30, 1972, approved
September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).
--Rule 64.2, Disposal and Evaporation of Solvents, adopted June 30,
1972, approved September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).
EPA is publishing this document 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 these SIP revisions should
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective April 12, 1999,
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by
March 11, 1999.
If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document
withdrawing this 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 action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule
will be effective on April 12, 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 E.O. 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, E.O. 12875 requires
EPA to provide to the OMB 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, E.O. 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.''
[[Page 6230]]
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 does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to the OMB, 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an
effective process permitting elected 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, but will simply remove
previously-approved SIP requirements that are no longer in effect.
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 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).
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 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 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 April 12, 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,
Sulfur oxides.
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: January 25, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
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)(6)(xvi) and
(c)(31)(xviii)(E) to read as follows:
[[Page 6231]]
Sec. 52.220 Identification of Plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(6) * * *
(xvi) Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District.
(A) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 and now deleted
without replacement Rules 56, 64, 64.1 and 64.2.
* * * * *
(31) * * *
(xviii) * * *
(E) Previously approved on January 24, 1978 and now deleted without
replacement Rules 213.2 and 213.3.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-2782 Filed 2-8-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
