[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 95 (Tuesday, May 16, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 31093-31096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11998]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 240-0237a; FRL-6602-2]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Revisions to 
the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey Bay Unified Air 
Pollution Control District

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).

[[Page 31094]]



                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local agency                  Rule No.             Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBUAPCD..................................          101  Definitions...................        36508        36578
MBUAPCD..................................          102  Standard Conditions                   36508        36578
                                                         (Rescission).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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                                 Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 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

[[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.

[[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:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (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