60784 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

1The State has recently changed the names and

boundaries of the air basins located within the

Southeast Desert Modified AQMA. Pursuant to

State regulation the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning

Area is now part of the Salton Sea Air Basin (17

Cal. Code. Reg. § 60114); the Victor Valley/Barstow

region in San Bernardino County and Antelope

Valley Region in Los Angeles County is a part of

the Mojave Desert Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg.

§ 60109). In addition, in 1996 the California

Legislature established a new local air agency, the

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, to

have the responsibility for local air pollution

planning and measures in the Antelope Valley

Region (California Health & Safety Code § 40106).

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 034–0048; FRL–5917–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, South

Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing limited

approvals and limited disapprovals of

revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on September 23,

1992 and May 14, 1997. This final

action will incorporate these rules into

the federally approved SIP. The

intended effect of finalizing this action

is to regulate emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). The revised rules

control VOC emissions from the

formulation and manufacture of

pharmaceuticals and cosmetics and

from facilities that load organic liquids

into tank trucks, trailers, or railroad tank

cars. Thus, EPA is finalizing a

simultaneous limited approval and

limited disapproval under CAA

provisions regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals and general rulemaking

authority because these revisions, while

strengthening the SIP, also do not fully

meet the CAA provisions regarding plan

submissions and requirements for

nonattainment areas. As a result of this

limited disapproval EPA will be

required to impose highway funding or

emission offset sanctions under the

CAA unless the State submits and EPA

approves corrections to the identified

deficiencies within 18 months of the

effective date of this disapproval.

Moreover, EPA will be required to

promulgate a Federal implementation

plan (FIP) unless the deficiencies are

corrected within 24 months of the

effective date of this disapproval.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on December 15, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rules and

EPA’s evaluation report for each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region 9 office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules 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 92123–1095.

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Christine Vineyard, Rulemaking Office,

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1197.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the

California SIP include: South Coast Air

Quality Management District

(SCAQMD) Rule 1103, Pharmaceuticals

and Cosmetic Manufacturing

Operations; and SCAQMD Rule 462,

Organic Liquid Loading. These rules

were submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on May

13, 1991 and October 13, 1995,

respectively.

This Federal Register action for the

South Coast Air Quality Management

District excludes the Los Angeles

County portion of the Southeast Desert

AQMA, otherwise known as the

Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles

County, which is now under the

jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air

Pollution Control District as of July 1,

1997. 1

II. Background

On September 23, 1992 in 57 FR

43960 and May 14, 1997 in 62 FR

26460, EPA proposed granting limited

approval and limited disapproval of the

following rules into the California SIP:

SCAQMD Rule 1103, Pharmaceutical

and Cosmetic Manufacturing

Operations, and SCAQMD Rule 462,

Organic Liquid Loading. Rule 1103 was

adopted by SCAQMD on December 7,

1990 and Rule 462 was adopted by

SCAQMD on June 9, 1995. These rules

were submitted by the CARB to EPA on

May 13, 1991 and October 13, 1995,

respectively. These rules were

submitted in response to EPA’s 1988 SIP

Call and the CAA section 182(a)(2)(A)

requirement that nonattainment areas

fix their reasonably available control

technology (RACT) rules for ozone in

accordance with EPA guidance that

interpreted the requirements of the preamendment Act. A detailed discussion

of the background for each of the above

rules and nonattainment areas is

provided in the proposed rules (PRs)

cited above.

EPA has evaluated the above rules for

consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA’s

interpretation of these requirements as

expressed in the various EPA policy

guidance documents referenced in the

PRs. EPA is finalizing the limited

approval of these rules in order to

strengthen the SIP and finalizing the

limited disapproval requiring the

correction of the remaining deficiencies.

SCAQMD Rule 1103 deficiencies

include the following: (1) Air Pollution

Control Officer discretion in the

approval of equivalent control systems;

(2) inadequate recordkeeping

requirements for key operating

parameters for monitoring control

systems; (3) the lack of necessary

recordkeeping requirements to show

compliance with exemption levels; and

(4) the lack of a test method for

measuring vapor pressure. In SCAQMD

Rule 462 the deficiency is the definition

of ‘‘facility vapor leak’’ that allows a

measurement distance of 2 centimeters

from the source according to procedures

listed in EPA Test Method 21. This 2

centimeter distance is inconsistent with

EPA Test Method 21, which requires

measurement at the surface of the

source or 1 centimeter for moving parts.

A detailed discussion of the rule

provisions and evaluations has been

provided in the PRs and in the technical

support documents (TSDs) available at

EPA’s Region IX office (TSDs dated June

19, 1992 (Rule 1103) and March 12,

1997 (Rule 462)).

III. Response to Public Comments

A 30-day public comment period was

provided in 57 FR 43960 and 62 FR

26460. EPA received no comments on

the PRs.

IV. EPA Action

EPA is finalizing a limited approval

and a limited disapproval of the abovereferenced rules. The limited approval

of these rules is being finalized under

section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA’s
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 219 / Thursday, November 13, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 60785

authority pursuant to section 301(a) to

adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The

approval is limited in the sense that the

rules strengthen the SIP. However, the

rules do not meet the section

182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because

of the rule deficiencies which were

discussed in the PRs. Thus, in order to

strengthen the SIP, EPA is granting

limited approval of these rules under

sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the

CAA. This action approves the rules

into the SIP as federally enforceable

rules.

At the same time, EPA is finalizing

the limited disapproval of these rules

because they contain deficiencies that

have not been corrected as required by

section 182(a)(2)(A) of the CAA, and, as

such, the rules do not fully meet the

requirements of Part D of the Act. As

stated in the PRs, upon the effective

date of this FR, the 18-month clock for

sanctions and the 24-month FIP clock

will begin. Sections 179(a) and 110(c). If

the State does not submit the required

corrections and EPA does not approve

the submittal within 18 months of the

FR, either the highway sanction or the

offset sanction will be imposed at the 18

month mark. It should be noted that the

rules covered by this FR have been

adopted by the SCAQMD and are

currently in effect in the SCAQMD.

EPA’s limited disapproval action will

not prevent a local agency 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.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

30l, and subchapter I, part D of the CAA

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, 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

action 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).

C. 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 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 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 Federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(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

compound.

Dated: October 24, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(184)(i)(B)(5) and

(225)(i)(A)(2) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(184) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(5) Rule 1103, adopted on December

7, 1990.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(2) Rule 462, revised on June 9, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–29863 Filed 11–12–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[FL–70–1–9738a; FRL–5920–3]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: Florida

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the Sections

111(d)/129 State Plan submitted by

Florida on November 18, 1996, for

implementing and enforcing the

Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to