Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 52
[CA 240-0237a; FRL-6602-2]
 AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
 ACTION: Direct final rule.
 SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving a local rule that concerns definitions and rescinding one rule that addresses standard conditions.
 DATES: This rule is effective on July 17, 2000 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by June 15, 2000. If we receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
                        **Federal Register**
                         to notify the public that this rule will not take effect.
 ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions at the following locations: Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 “L” Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-1189.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA. Table of Contents I. The State's Submittal A. What Rules Did the State Submit? B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules? C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rules? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria? C. Public Comment and Final Action III. Background Information Why Were These Rules Submitted? IV. Administrative Requirements I. The State's Submittal A. What Rules Did the State Submit? Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 
                    ( print page 31094) **Table 1.—Submitted Rules**
Local agency
Rule No.
Rule title
Adopted
SubmittedMBUAPCD
101
Definitions
36508
36578MBUAPCD
102
Standard Conditions (Rescission)
36508
36578
 On March 7, 2000, these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review. B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules? There are previous versions of Rules 101 and 102 in the SIP. We approved a version of Rules 101 and 102 into the SIP on February 6, 1998 and July 13, 1987, respectively. The MBUAPCD adopted revisions to the SIP-approved version of Rules 101 and 102 on December 15, 1999 and CARB submitted them to us on February 23, 2000. C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Revisions? Rule 101 revises Section 2.10 to add methyl acetate as an exempt compound to be consistent with the federal definition of volatile organic compounds and to correct the scientific names for HFC-245ca, HFC-245eb, and HFC-245fa. Rule 102 is being rescinded because it is included in Rule 101 as Section 2.29. II. EPA's Evaluation and Action A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules? These rules describe administrative provisions and definitions that support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In combination with the other requirements, these rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to define specific enforceability requirements includes, “Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 
                    **Federal Register**
                     document,” (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 25, 1988 
                    **Federal Register**
                    . B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria? We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSD has more information on our evaluation. C. Public Comment and Final Action As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rule revisions because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this 
                    **Federal Register**
                    , we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rule revisions. If we receive adverse comments by June 15, 2000, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
                    **Federal Register**
                     to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on July 17, 2000. This will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. III. Background Information Why Were These Rules Submitted? Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local agency's program to control these pollutants. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these rules. **Table 2.—Ozone Nonattainment Milestones**
Date
EventMarch 3, 1978
EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.May 26, 1988
EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA's SIP-Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre-amended Act.November 15, 1990
Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted. Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
 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 
                    ( print page 31095)
                    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. 
                    ( print page 31096) 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 July 17, 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
Nitrogen dioxide
Ozone
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Volatile organic compounds
 Dated: April 18, 2000. Felicia Marcus, 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)(275) and (c)(276) to read as follows: § 52.220
 
 (c) * * * (275) Reserved. (276) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on February 23, 2000, by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation by reference. (A) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District. (
                    *1*) Rules 101 and 102, adopted on December 15, 1999.


[FR Doc. 00-11998 Filed 5-15-00; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P