3850 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16 /Tuesday, January 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

1The proposed action on November 6, 1998

mistakenly identified the submittal and

completeness date for Rule 1 as the same date as

Rules 2 and 4.

2EPA adopted 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).

(R) Texas Natural Resource

Conservation Commission order

adopting amendments to the SIP; Docket

Number 95–1198–RUL, issued

December 19, 1995.

(ii) Additional Material

(A) TNRCC certification letter dated

December 13, 1995, and signed by the

Chief Clerk, TNRCC that the attached

are true and correct copies of the SIP

revision adopted by the Commission on

December 13, 1995.

(B) The following portions of the SIP

narrative entitled Post-1996 Rate of

Progress Plan for the Beaumont/Port

Arthur and Houston/Galveston Ozone

Nonattainment Areas Dated December

13, 1995: The section pertaining to

Storage Tanks (pp. 17–37), the section

pertaining to SOCMI Reactor and

Distillation (p. 40), the Section

pertaining to Plastic Parts Coating (pp.

54–55).

[FR Doc. 99–1650 Filed 1–25–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 102–0120; FRL–6220–2a]

Final Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing limited

approval and limited disapproval of

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on November 6,

1998. This limited approval and limited

disapproval action will incorporate

portions of Rules 1, 2 and 4 of

Regulation 2—Permits, for the Bay Area

Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD or the ‘‘District’’) into the

federally approved State

Implementation Plan (SIP).

The intended effect of finalizing this

limited approval and limited

disapproval of these rules is to

strengthen the federally approved SIP

by incorporating these updated

provisions and to satisfy Federal

requirements for an approvable

nonattainment area NSR SIP for the

District.

Thus, EPA is finalizing simultaneous

limited approval and limited

disapproval as a revision into the

California SIP under provisions of the

Act regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, and general rulemaking

authority. While strengthening the SIP,

this revision contains deficiencies

which the BAAQMD must address

before EPA can grant full approval

under Section 110(k)(3).

DATES: This action is effective on

February 25, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the state submittal

and other supporting information used

in developing the final action are

available for public inspection (Docket

Number CA102–0120) at EPA’s Region

IX office during normal business hours

and at the following locations:

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Walser, Permits Office [AIR–3], Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1257.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The following rules are being

approved for limited approval and

limited disapproval into the California

SIP: District Regulation 2 Permits, Rule

1 General Requirements, Rule 2 New

Source Review, and Rule 4 Emissions

Banking. Rules 2 and 4 were submitted

by the California Air Resources Board

on behalf of the District to EPA on

September 28, 1994. Rule 1 was

submitted by the California Air

Resources Board on behalf of the

District to EPA on December 31, 1990.

II. Background

On November 6, 1998, in 63 FR

59924, EPA proposed limited approval

and limited disapproval for BAAQMD

Regulation 2 Permits, Rules 1, 2 and 4.

The BAAQMD adopted Rule 1 on

November 1, 1989, and Rules 2 and 4 on

June 15, 1994. Submitted Rule 1 was

found to be complete on February 28,

1991, and submitted Rules 2 and 4 were

found to be complete on November 22,

1994,1 pursuant to EPA’s completeness

criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR Part

51, Appendix V.2 These rules were

proposed for limited approval and

limited disapproval. A detailed

discussion of the background for these

rules and EPA’s evaluation is provided

in the November 6, 1998 Proposed

Rulemaking Notice (NPRM) cited above.

III. Response to Comments

A 30 day public comment period was

provided in 63 FR 59924. EPA received

one public comment on the proposal

from the California Council for

Environmental and Economic Balance

(CCEEB), and is responding to that

comment in this document.

CCEEB commented that EPA should

specifically exclude Section 2–4–304.3

of Regulation 2, Rule 4 from any final

SIP approval of all or portions of Rule

4. Section 2–4–304.3 of Rule 4 states

that ‘‘emission reduction credits may

not be used to exempt a source from any

other air pollution control requirements

whatsoever of federal, State, or District

laws, rules and regulations.’’ CCEEB is

concerned that Section 2–4–304.3

addresses State law issues, and is not

necessary to meet Federal Clean Air Act

requirements. In addition, CEEB

commented that the California Health

and Safety Code Section 39602 provides

that the California SIP ‘‘shall include

only those provisions necessary to meet

the requirements of the Clean Air Act.’’

Section 2–4–304.3 was not a section

of Regulation 2, Rule 4 that EPA

identified as a SIP-approvability issue in

63 FR 59924. As written, Section 2–4–

304.3 of Rule 4 is not inconsistent with

federal requirements or EPA policy and

does not present any SIP-approvability

issues. If CCEEB believes the language is

inconsistent with state law, its remedy

is at the state and local level. The

District, if in agreement with CCEEB,

would need to revise the rule and

submit the rule modification to the

California Air Resources Board as a SIP

submittal. EPA does not have the

authority to revise the rule language as

requested, or exclude Section 2–4–304.3

from final SIP approval.

IV. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

BAAQMD Regulation 2 clarifies the

terms and requirements that apply to

the District’s NSR regulation and

emissions banking program. BAAQMD

Regulation 2 was originally adopted as

part of BAAQMD’s effort to achieve the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone. For EPA’s detailed

evaluation of BAAQMD Regulation 2,

Rules 1, 2 and 4, please refer to the

NPRM at 63 FR 59924, November 6,

1998.

EPA has evaluated District Rules 1, 2

and 4 of Regulation 2 and has

determined that the rules contain
Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16 /Tuesday, January 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations 3851

deficiencies and are not fully consistent

with CAA requirements, EPA

regulations and EPA policy. Because

these rule deficiencies are inappropriate

for inclusion in the SIP, EPA cannot

grant full approval of these rules under

section 110(k)(3). Also, because the

submitted rules are not composed of

separable parts which meet all the

applicable requirements of the CAA,

EPA cannot grant partial approval of the

rule under section 110(k)(3). However,

EPA is granting final limited approval of

the submitted rules 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

final approval is limited because EPA’s

action also contains a simultaneous

limited disapproval. In order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is finalizing

limited approval of BAAQMD’s

submitted Regulation 2 under sections

110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

It should be noted that the rules

covered by this final rulemaking have

been adopted by the BAAQMD,

subsequently revised, and are currently

in effect in the BAAQMD. EPA’s final

limited disapproval action does not

prevent the BAAQMD or EPA from

enforcing these rules.

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.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

Copies of Bay Area’s submittal and

other information relied upon for the

final actions are contained in docket

number CA102–0120 maintained at the

EPA Regional Office. The docket is an

organized and complete file of all the

information submitted to, or otherwise

considered by, EPA in the development

of this final rulemaking. The docket is

available for public inspection at the

location listed under the ADDRESSES

section of this document.

B. 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.

C. 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.

D. 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.

E. 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.

F. 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).

G. Unfunded Mandates

Under Section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995
3852 Federal Register / Vol. 64, No. 16 /Tuesday, January 26, 1999 /Rules and Regulations

(‘‘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.

H. 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).

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 March 29, 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, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: January 4, 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)(182)(i)(B)(6) and

(c)(199)(i)(A)(8) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(182) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(6) Regulation 2, Rule 1 adopted on

November 1, 1989.

* * * * *

(199) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(8) Regulation 2, Rule 2 and Rule 4

adopted on June 15, 1994.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99–1647 Filed 1–25–99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD079–3035a; FRL–6218–2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Control of VOCs From the

Manufacture of Explosives and

Propellant

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

submitted by the State of Maryland.

This revision imposes reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

requirements for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) from sources that

manufacture explosives and propellant.

The intent of this action is to approve

Maryland’s request to amend its SIP to

include RACT requirements to control

VOCs from the manufacture of

explosives and propellant.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

without further notice on March 29,

1999 unless by February 25, 1999,

adverse or critical comments are

received by EPA. If EPA receives such

comments, it will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register informing the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and

Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; the

Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW,

Washington, DC 20460; and the

Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,

Baltimore, Maryland 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul

T. Wentworth at (215) 814–2183, or by

e-mail at wentworth.paul@epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, comments must be submitted in

writing to the above EPA Region III

address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 28, 1998, the State of

Maryland submitted a formal revision to

its SIP, which consists of amendments

to COMAR 26.11.19 Control of Volatile

Organic Compounds from Specific

Processes. The revision consists of the

addition of a new regulation at COMAR

26.11.19.25 Control of Volatile Organic

Compounds from Explosives and

Propellant Manufacturing to establish

RACT for VOCs from the manufacture of

explosives and propellant. This revision

was submitted to satisfy the

requirements of sections 182 and 184 of

the Clean Air Act to implement RACT

on major sources of VOCs.