00-8149. Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, San Diego County, San Joaquin Valley Unified, and Ventura County Air Pollution ...

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 rule rescissions from the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD), San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and amendments to Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD). This approval action will rescind and amend these rules from the federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rule rescissions and amendments is to update and clarify the State Implementation Plan in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The rule rescissions consist of obsolete rules that have been superseded or removed from the district's regulations. EPA is finalizing the approval of these revisions to the California SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIP requirements for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES:

This rule is effective on June 5, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 5, 2000. If EPA receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES:

Written comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel, Chief, Rulemaking Office at the Region IX office listed below. 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 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 95812

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, 8411 Jackson Rd., Sacramento, CA 95826

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego, CA 92123-1096

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, CA 93721

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, CA 93003

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: [phone]).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule revisions to the California SIP are listed below.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD)

Rule 445, Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning, submitted 05/18/98; rescission adopted 10/03/96.

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)

Rule 67.8, Dry Cleaning Facilities Using Halogenated Organic Solvent, submitted 07/23/99, rescission adopted 11/04/98.

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)

Rule 4671, Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning System, submitted 10/13/95, rescission adopted 06/15/95.

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)

Rule 74.5.2, Dry Cleaning Facilities Using Halogenated Organic Solvents, submitted 08/10/95 revision adopted 05/09/95.

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 the SMAQMD, SDCAPCD, SJVUAPCD, and VCAPCD. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. In response to section 110 (a) of the Act and other requirements, SMAQMD, SDCAPCD, SJVUAPCD, and VCAPCD submitted many rules which EPA approved into the SIP.

On February 7, 1996 (61 FR 4588) EPA published a final rule excluding perchloroethylene from the definition of volatile organic compound. This compound was determined to have negligible photochemical reactivity and, thus, was added to the Agency's list of Exempt Compounds.

The State of California submitted the rule revisions listed above to update the federally enforceable SIP for the SMAQMD, SDCAPCD, SJVUAPCD, and VCAPCD, and to be consistent with EPA's 1996 rulemaking. The following is EPA's evaluation and final action for each rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining whether to approve each revision to the SIP, EPA must evaluate the revisions 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, which forms the basis for this action, appears in various EPA policy guidance documents.

The rules that are being rescinded are not appropriate for the SIP because they do not control criteria pollutants. EPA regulates perchloroethylene as a hazardous air pollutant under section 112 of the Act.

EPA has evaluated the rule revisons and has determined that they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, all of the rule revisions listed in section I, Applicability are being approved under section 110(k) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D.

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 adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective June 5, 2000 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by May 5, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register 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. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule is effective on June 5, 2000, 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 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”

B. Executive Order 13045

Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.

C. 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 affects 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. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must 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 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 Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13121, entitled 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 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, 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.

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 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. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This rule is not a “major” rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. 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.

I. 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 June 5, 2000. 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: March 15, 2000.

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]

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

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

Subpart F—California

1. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(183)(i)(A)( 8), (c)(184)(i)(A)(3), (c)(185)(i)(C)(7), and (c)(224)(i)(B)(3) to read as follows:

§ 52.220

Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(183) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(8) Previously approved on March 24, 1992 and now deleted without replacement Rule 67.8.

* * * * *

(184) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(3) Previously approved on August 20, 1991 and now deleted without replacement Rule 445.

* * * * *

(185) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) * * *

(7) Previously approved on April 24, 1992 and now deleted without replacement Rule 467.1.

* * * * *

(224) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) Rule 74.5.2, adopted on May 5, 1995.

* * * * *