# + 2

(,1 1/,1(

Citation: 60 Fed. Reg. 43379 1995

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Tue Dec 8 13:02:46 2009

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 43379

active piers and drydocks. Based on this review, the Commanding Officer concluded that swimmers, divers and other individuals not embarked in vessels may pose a serious threat to the security ofthe shipyard if those individuals are allowed to enter the
waters ofSinclair Inlet adjacent to the shipyard. Moreover, persons swimming

or diving in these waters may be exposed to numerous dangers associated with theindustrial waterfront facilities
at the shipyard. These dangers include maneuvering U.S. Naval vessels, underwater pump suctions and discharges, rotating propellers, and rigging and crane operations qver the
water. Based on this review ofthe security and safety conditions atthe shipyard, the Commanding Officer has requested that the restricted areas be amended to prohibit the trespassing of
persons into the restricted areas at Sinclair Inlet; add acoordinate to accommodate the extension ofthe south end of "mooring A" maintaining a buffer 100 yards south ofthe end ofthis mooring, and to change the geographic coordinates for therestricted area to conform to the 1983 re-establishment of the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice ofproposed rulemaking was not published for this regulation and good

cause exists for making it effective less than 30 days after the date of publication in the Federal Register. Publishing a proposed rule and delaying the effective date ofthis regulation would be contrary to the public interest because immediate action is necessary to safeguard the security ofthe Puget Sound Naval Shipyard and to insure public safety on the navigable watefs of the United States. On June 27, 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard published a temporary final rule establishing a combined security and safety zone on the waters ofSinclair Inlet as an interim measure until the Corps could revise the existing restricted arearegulations. The Coast Guard regulations expire on September 9, 1995.

In addition to the request for
comments on these interim final rules,

on July 21, 1995, the Corps Seattle District published and distributed a public notice to all known interested parties soliciting comments on the proposed amendments to 33 CFR 334.1240. The comment period for the District public notice was scheduled to expire on August 21, 1995, but is extended to end on the same date as the
comment period for these interim final rules. TheCorps will consider all
comments received in response to the District public notice and this interim final rule and will make any changes to 

### the regulations it deems tobe inthe public interest.,
Economic Assessment andCertification

This interim final rule is issuedwith respect to a military function ofthe Defense Department and the provisions ofExecutive Order 12866 do not apply. These interim final rules havebeen reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub.L. 96-354), which requires the preparation ofa regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities (i.e., small businesses and small governments). The Corps has determined that theeconomic impact of the changes to the restricted area will havepractically noimpact onthe public,no anticipated navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic and accordingly, no significant economic impact on small entities.

List ofSubjects in 33 CFRPart334



### Danger zones.Navigation (water), Transportation.

In consideration ofthe above, the Corps is amending part 334 oftitle33 toread as follows:

1.The authority citation for part 334 continues to read as follows:

Authority:40 

### Stat. 266 (33 U.S.C. 1)

### and 40 

### Stat. 892 (33 U.S.C. 3).

2. Section 334.1240 is revised to read

as follows: 

### §334.1240 SinclairInlet; Naval Restricted Areas.

(a)SinclairInlet;navalrestricted areas.-(1)AreaNo. 1.All the waters of Sinclair Inlet westerly ofa line drawn from the Bremerton Ferry Landing at latitude 47o33'48" N, longitude 122*37'23"W on the north shore of Sinclair Inlet and latitude 47032'52 ''N, longitude 122136'58" W on the south shore ofSinclair Inlet.

(2) AreaNo. 2.That area of Sinclair Inlet to the north and west ofan area bounded by a line commencing at latitude 47033'43"N, longitude 122037'31"W thence south to latitude 47O33'39 ' "N, longitude 122037'27 " W thence southwest to latitude 47*33'23 " N, longitude 122037'45" 'W thence southwest to latitude 47'33'19 ' 'N, longitude 122038'12"W thence southwest to latitude 47*33'10' ' N, longitude 122038'19" Wthence southwest to latitude 47033'07"' N, longitude 122038'29" Wthence west to latitude 47033'07 '' N, longitude 122038'58" 'W thence southwest to latitude 47033'041 'N, longitude 122039'07"W thence west to thenorth shore ofSinclair Inlet at latitude 47033'04" 'N, longitude 122*39'41" W. (3) Theregulations.(i) Area No. 1.No vessel ofmore than 100 gross tons shall
enter this area ornavigate therein without permission fromthe enforcing

agency. (ii)This area is for the exclusive use ofthe U.S. Navy. Noperson, vessel, craft, article orthing except those under supervision ofmilitary or naval authority except Washington 'State Ferries orHorluck Transportation Company Ferries on established routes shall enter this area without permission from the enforcing agency.

(iii)The regulations in this section shall be enforced by the Commander, Naval Base, Seattle, Washington, or his/ her authorized representative.

(b) [Reserved]
Dated: August 14, 1995. Approved. Stanley G.Genega, MajorGeneral,USA,Director ofCivilWorks. [FR Doc. 95-20588 Filed 8-18-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-42-M

40 CFR Part 52 [CAI05-a-7055; 5270-6]
Approval and Promulgation ofState Implementation Plans; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final and interim finalrule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving state implementation plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State ofCalifornia on November 15, 1994, relating to antiperspirants and deodorants and other consumer products sold in California; reformulated gasoline and diesel fuel sold or supplied as motor vehicle fuels inCalifornia; and certain new-technology measures adopted by the California AirResources Board (CARB) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). EPA is finalizing the approval ofthese revisions to the California SIP under provisions ofthe Clean AirAct (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment areas. DATES: Effective dates.The final and interim final SIP actions are effective on September 20, 1995. PART 334-DANGER ZONE AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS AGENCY

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 43379 1995

### 43380 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Comments.The deadline forwritten
comments on the interim final SIP actions (40CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(A)(4) and 40 CFR 52.220(c)(204)(i)(B)(1)) is September 20, 1995. ADDRESSES: Written comments on the 

### interim final SIP actions mustbe received by EPA atthe address below on
orbefore the close ofthe public
comment period. Comments shouldbe submitted (in duplicate, ifpossible) to: Regional Administrator, Attention: Office ofFederal Planning (A-1-2), Air and Toxics Division, Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies ofthe rules and additional background materials are available for review at EPA's Region IX office at the above address during normal business hours.Interested persons may make an appointment with Ms. Virginia Petersen at (415) 744-1265, to inspect the materials at EPA's San Francisco office

on weekdays between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.

Copies ofthe rules are also available for inspection atthe addresses listed below: Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, California South Coast AirQuality Management

District, 21865E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Julia Barrow, (415) 744-2434, 

### at theOffice of Federal Planning (A-1-2), Airand Toxics Division, U.S. EPA, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California 94105-3901.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

### I.Background

On November 15, 1994, CARB 

### submitted as arevision to the California SIP:

(1)The California Antiperspirants and Deodorants regulations and Consumer Products regulations, as contained in Title 17 ofthe California Code of Regulations, Sections 94500-94506.5 and 94507-94517, adopted onDecember 27, 1990, August 14, 1991, and September 21, 1992; 2)The California Diesel Fuel regulations, ascontained inTitle 13 of the California Code ofRegulations, Sections 2281 and 2282, adopted on August 22, 1989,June 21,*1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994;

(3)The California Reformulated Gasoline regulations, as contained in Title 13 ofthe California Code of Regulations, Sections 2250, 2252, 2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 2262.2, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.7, 2263, 2264, 2266-2272, 2296, and 2297, initially approved by CARB

on November 17, 1988, and formally adopted on August 22, 1989, June 21, 1990, April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994;

(4) California new-technology

measures M-2, M-9, CP-4, and Additional Measures, adopted on November 15, 1994; and

(5) SCAQMD new-technology

measures ADV-CTS-01, ADV-FUG, ADV-PRC, ADV-UNSP, and ADV-CTS02, adopted on Septemnber 9, 1994.

All ofthese rules and measures were submitted as part ofthe 1994 California SIP for Ozone. These portions ofthe California ozone submittal were found
to be complete on January 13, 1995, January 30, 1995, and April 18, 1995, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria, that are set forth in 40 CFRPart 51 Appendix V.I

On February 14, 1995, the Administrator signed a final approval action on all ofthese rules and

measures, as part ofthe Notice ofFinal Rulemaking (NFRM) issuing Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) for Sacramento, Ventura, and the South Coast. On April 10, 1995, legislation

was enacted mandating that these FIPs "shall be rescinded and shall have no further force and effect" (Public Law 104-6, Defense Supplemental Appropriation, H.R. 889), prior to publication ofthe FP and SIP actions in the Federal Register. Inthe Notices Section ofthis issue ofthe Federal Register, EPA announces the FIP rescission and cancellation ofthe FIP public hearing. EPA is in this action reissuing the SIP approvals, which were integrated into the FIP NFRM.

A. California Antiperspirant and Deodorant and-Consumer Product Rules

At the time ofthe California FIP proposal (59 FR 23318-23220, May 5, 1994), CARB had not yet submitted its antiperspirant and deodorant and

consumer products rules. Therefore, EPA had no choice but to propose equivalent,federal measures to achieve federally enforceable VOC emission reductions from consumer products (40 CFR 52.2957(a)) and antiperspirants and deodorants (40 CFR 52.2957(b)). As discussed above, CARB submitted on November 15, 1994, the California Consumer Products and Antiperspirant and Deodorant rules.

EPA adopted the completeness criteriaon February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) ofthe CAA, revised thecriteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216). Because theproposed FIP measures

were virtually identical to the CARB submittal, EPA did not finalize its FIP proposal but invoked the "good cause" provision in the Administrative Procedures Act (APA, 5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.)to approve, in final action, the CARB Consumer Products and Antiperspirant and Deodorant rules without further opportunity for
comment. Further comment is unniecessary under section 553(b)(1)(B) ofthe APA, since EPA cannot envision
any comment on the CARB measure which could not have been made with respect toEPA's FIP proposal. It is therefore.unnecessary to solicit additionalrcomment on the CARB submittal, especially since EPA's role withrespect to the SIP approval is

narrower than for FTP promulgation. EPA has considered the comments on the FIP proposal as applicable to the. CARB SIP submittal and has found that submittal to be approvable.

The FIP proposal generated several
comments. EPA believes that very similar or identical comments would have been received ifEPA hadproposed

a Notice ofProposed Rulemaking to approve the CARB submittal as a SIP revision. EPAbelieves that the appropriate issues for comment on the SIPrule are whether it is enforceable and how much credit is deserved. Since the proposed FTP rule was based on the CARB rule, and the FIP proposal was enforceable and claimed the same amount of credit as the SIP rule, these issues have already been addressed. Therefore, further public comment regarding today's action of approving thenearly indistinguishable State rules is unnecessary and not inthe public interest.

Several commenters expressed a preference for CARB administration of the consumer products and antiperspirant/deodorant rules. Although CARB always would have maintained primary responsibility for administering the rule regardless ofthe FIPs, EPA concurs and through this approval action reaffirms CARB's primary administrative role.

Several commenters stated their opposition to perceived technology forcing limits adopted by CARB and proposed in the FIPs. EPA believes that CARB's approach ofadopting future effective limits is appropriate given the need to reduce VOC emissions in California's ozone nonattainment areas. In addition, the State rule allows time for manufacturers to make the necessary. adjustments to meet the requirements of the rule. CARB's inclusion offlexibility in their rules (i.e., the Innovative Products provision and Alternative

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 43380 1995

### FederalRegister I Vol. 60, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 43381

Compliance Plan 2 provision) also affords manufacturers compliance options ifthey are unable to reformulate

agiven product. Inthe event that a future effective limit isrevised by CARB, EPA will work with CARBto help develop an alternative strategy for achieving the needed reductions. Several commenters recommended changing the consumer products and antiperspirant and deodorant rules to allow automatic acceptance by EPA of innovative product exemptions, alternative testmethods, and variances approved by CARB. In orderto make the innovative product and variance provisions federally enforceable, EPA worked closely with the State to add the "Federal Enforceability" language to the rule. EPA will expedite review of actions covered under these provisions. EPAis also working with CARB to explore options to further streamline EPA review ofinnovative product applcations.,

pne commenter indicated that EPA's

action should not subvert its efforts under 183(e) ofthe Act. EPAbelieves that approving the SiP submittal is consistent with section 183(e), which does not prohibit states from adopting

consumer product measures nor does it prohibit EPA from acting on such submittals.

A commenter noted that in the proposed FIP measure ifa product label indicates that the product is suitable for

use inmore than one consumer product category, the applicable VOC content limit will be the lowest ofthe categories for which suitability is claimed. EPA believes thatthis provision, which is also in the CARB rules, is important to

ensure that manufacturers do not make multiple claimsjust to allow for a higher limit. EPA believes that the "Most Restrictive Limit" provision is justified in order to prevent labeling abuses.

One commenter indicated that the definition ofVOC is not clear with respect to the handling ofnegligibly photochemically reactive compounds and asked for clarification regarding whether pre-market clearance was needed from EPA. EPA believes the handling ofthese compounds in the SIP rule is adequate but could be further clarified. EPA will work with CARBto this end during its next rule revision. EPAbelieves that there was no intent to require apre-market clearance but rather that, for compliance purposes,

2Although CARB did not submit the Alternative Compliance Plan (ACP) regulation toEPA as part oftheir November 15th submittal, CARB indicated their intentto submit it to EPA in early 1995. EPA intends to act on theACP regulation as soon as it is received. 

### manufacturers may be required to demonstrate to regulators the amount of negligibly reactive compounds claimed
tobe ina given product.

A commenter suggestedthat EPA should consider removing the VOC content standard forthe dual purpose AirFreshener/Disinfectant product category. Another commenter suggested that EPAextend the compliance date for aerosol fabric protectantstoJanuary 1, 1997. EPAbelieves that removing or adjusting these standards would not be prudent, andthat GARB was technically justified increating the content standards. Inaddition,because this is a SIPaction, itis not appropriate for EPA to modify CARB's rule.

A commenting organization noted its

concern that theconsumer product

measure has a disproportionate impact

on aerosols because CFCs andHCFCs cannot legally be used aspropellants and-HFCs are nota viable option for use in consumer products because ofUS Department ofTransportation regulations and limited availability of the product. The commenter recommended that EPA maintain the February 1995 HVOC limits inplace beyond 1999.EPA supports the future effective VOC content limits originally established by GARB. Inthis instance, alternative product forms are readily available orthe source can seek an alternative compliance option.

A commenter requested the removal ofthe "grandfather clause" for companies using ethanol priorto January 1, 1994, and stated that the antiperspirant and deodorant MVOC standards should be modified to allow faircompetition among firms.EPA and CARB are aware that the grandfather clause may affect some manufacturers

more than others. CARB has acknowledged that the ethanol issue will bereexamined inthe near future. EPA believes that thisissue canbest be addressedby the affected parties working with GARB to develop suggested changes whichwill accomplish or enhance the same overall reduction goals. CARB's expected reexamination doesnot affect EPA's SIP approval at thistime.

A commenter stated-thatthe antiperspirant and deodorant limits are nottechnologically feasible or realistic and amount to a ban onthe aerosol form ofthese products. As mentioned previously, EPA supports the future effective limits originally established by CARB. Inthis instance, alternative product forms arereadily available, or the source can seek an alternative compliance option. B. California DieselFueland ReformulatedGasolineRules

In EPA's proposed FIP (see 59 FR 23385-6), EPA concluded that fuels meeting California's diesel fuel specifications would likely produce lower emissions ofoxides of nitrogen (NOx) than fuelsmeeting EPA's current low sulfur diesel specifications. Similarly, California's Phase Iand Phase II gasoline standards appear to provide
at least as great emission reductions as the federal Phase I and Phase II standards prescribed by section 211(k) ofthe Act (see 59 FR 23384-5).

In EPA's FIP proposal California's diesel fuel and reformulated gasoline
programs were continued without amendment and were fully credited. No negative comments were received regarding the CARB programs. Following the proposal, CARB submitted these programs to EPA. Approval ofthese programs as part of the SIP has the same effect asthe original proposal on all regulated and otherwise affected parties. Therefore, approval ofthe submitted fuels programs into the SIPmay be finalized without further opportunity for public

comment.
C.GARB andSCAQMDNewTechnologyMeasures

The 1990 Amendments to the Act added section 182(e)(5), which applies exclusively to "Extreme" ozone areas. This provision authorizes the State to

use conceptual, as yet unadopted

measures forits ozone attainment demonstration and rate-of-progress after the year 2000, ifthese measures anticipate new orimproved technology

orcontrol techniques and are not needed to meet the progress requirements for the first 10 years.

The South Coast Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) generally discusses control areas and approaches that are appropriate forlong-range development and adoption in accordance with section 182(e)(5). To illustrate the SCAQMD's commitment in this area, the AQMP also includes a summary ofabroad range ofclean technology development projects sponsored by the SCAQMD's Technology Advancement Office (TAO) (Appendix IV-G) and lists ofTAO
current orrecently-completed projects for mobile sources (Executive Summary, Table 7-5) and stationary sources (Executive Summary, Table 7-6).

As required by the Act, the SCAQMD's 1994 AQMP Board Resolution 94-36, includes the following finding:

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 43381 1995

### 43382 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

That the District is committed to develop contingency measures for the Section 182(e)(5) long-term measures andsubmit them tothe U.S. Environmental Protection Agency no later than threeyears before implementation of the Section 182(e)(5)

measures. Finding 33, page 11.

CARB also submitted a commitment
to develop the required contingency

measures for implementation in the
event that the State or South Coast newtechnology measures are unsuccessful (1994 California SIP for Ozone, Volume I, page 1-34).

To qualify forthe section 182(e)(5) authorization, the State submitted a demonstration that reductions from both the CARB and SCAQMD newtechnology measures are not needed to achieve the first 10 years ofprogress required under the Act.

EPA interprets theAct to allow EPA
to approve the State's new-technology

measures and credit them toward the SIP's attainment demonstration, even before EPA determines thatthe South Coast ozone SIPattainment demonstration is fully approvable. Assuming the State makes the required commitment to submit contingency

measures and the Administrator concludes that the measures are not needed to achieve the first 10years of
progress, the provisions ofsection 182(e)(5) authorize the Administrator to approve and credit the State's conceptual measures at this time.

These measures necessarily are preliminary, and as such lackboth regulations and technical support or

even decisions regarding specific directions and approaches. Complete SIP rule elements are dependent upon future years ofresearch projects, analyses oftechnologies and associated commercial feasibility, public workshops, andpublic decisionmaking. Eventually, the measures must become federally enforceable regulations, and in that process undergo full public involvement both at the State and local level and through formal EPA SIP approval action.

CARB and SCAQMD have undertaken the new-technology measure obligations
to achieve, in conjunction with other elements ofthe SIP submittal, ozone attainment in the South Coast by the year 2010. These initiatives rest upon past accomplishments and extensive present investments ofboth CARB and SCAQMD in developing newclean technologies through the commercialization and regulatory stages.

In the final FIP document, EPA took "interim final" action to approve the SCAQMD and CARB new-technology provisions listed below. EPAfound that good cause existed to approve the' State's measures, deferring further notice and comment until after promulgation, because ofthe impending
court deadline for FIP issuance and the Agency's beliefthat the public interest strongly favored approval ofthe newlyadopted SIP measures rather than promulgation ofFederal alternatives. In the final FIP action, therefore, EPA invoked the good cause exception under the APA, which allows for issuance of "interim final" rules in cases where it is "impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest" to provide an opportunity for notice and
comment before issuing the final rule (see 5 U.S.C. 702).

Thus, EPA determined that California's section 182(e)(5) measures warranted approval in an interim final rulemaking. The rescission ofthe FIP does not alter EPA's view. For EPA to formally withdraw its approval pending comment, simply because the FIP has been rescinded, would amount to an empty exercise. It would also confuse the public and retard progress on the
state plan for reasons having nothing to do with the merits ofthe approval. Commenters will notbe disadvantaged, sinceEPA intends to give them a full and immediate opportunity to be heard during the comment period.

Although these interim final SIP actions are effective on September 20, 1995, EPA invites public comments on the approval actions. Under the APA, interim final rules are final for the interim period lasting until the Agency takes further action following consideration ofpost-promulgation
comments. Public comments mustbe submitted in writing to EPA at the address indicated at thebeginning of this document on orbefore September 20, 1995. As discussed above, further and more extensive opportunities for public involvement will arise as the CARB and SCAQMD new-technology

measures are developed and adopted in regulatory form, and again as EPA takes SIPrulemaking action on the submitted regulations.

1. SCAQMDNew-TechnologyMeasures

Advance Tech-CTS (Coating Technologies), ADV-CTS-01, adoption 2003, 23.9 tpd ROG3;

Advanced Tech-Fugitives, ADV-FUG, adoption 2003, 23.1 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech-Process Related Emissions,ADV-PRC, adoption 2003, 12.3 tpd ROG;

3ROG (reactive organic gases) isused by California in lieuofEPA's VOC. Unlike VOC, ROG includes ethane. Advance Tech-Unspecified, Stationary Sources, ADV-UNSP, adoption 2003, 67 tpdROG;

Advance Tech-CTS (Coatings Technologies), ADV-CTS-02, 54.7 tpd ROG.

2. CARB New-TechnologyMeasures

Improved Control Technology for LDVs, M-2, adoption 2000, implementation 2004-5, 2010 emission reductions-10 tpd ROG, 15 tpd NOx;

Off-road dieselequipment-2.5 g/ bhp-hr NOx standard, M-9, adoption 2001, implementation 2005, 2010 emission reductions-3 tpd ROG, 31 tpd NOx;

Consumer products advanced technology and market incentives

measure, CP-4, adoption 2005, implementation 2009, 2010 emission reductions-46 tpd ROG;

Additional measures, 2009-2010 emission reductions-79 tpd ROG, 60 tpdNOx. The measures include possible market-incentive measures and possible operational measures applicable to heavy-duty vehicles.

II. EPA Action

EPA is here finalizing action to approve the above rules and measures for inclusion into the California SIP. EPA is approving the submittals under section 110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements ofsection 110(a) ofthe CAA. This approval action will incorporate these rules and measures into the federally approved SIP. The intended effect ofapproving these rules and measures is to regulate emissions of VOCs, NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx), particulate matter, and air toxics in accordance with the requirements ofthe CAA.

Nothing in this action shouldbe construed aspermitting or allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be considered separately in light ofspecific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in-relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

III.Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact ofany 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 ofsmall entities. Small entities include small business, small not-for-profit enterprises and government entities with jurisdiction over populations ofless than 50,000.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 43382 1995

### Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 161 / Monday, August 21, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 43383

SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301 and subchapter I,part D ofthe CAA, donotcreate any new requirements, but simply approve requirements that the State is already imposing.Therefore, because the Federal SIPapproval does notimpose anynew requirements, it doesnot have a significant impact on any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature ofthe Federal state relationship underthe CAA, preparation ofa regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness ofstate action. The CAA forbids EPA tobase its actions concerning SIP's on such grounds. UnionElectricCo.v. U.S.E.P.A., 427 

### U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

The OMB has exempted this action from review under Executive Order 12866.
IV. Unfunded Mandates

Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ("Unfunded Mandates Act") signed into lawon March 22, 1995, EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed orfinal rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in*estimatedcosts of$100 million

or moreto the private sector, orto State, local, or tribal governments inthe aggregate.

Through submission ofthese SIP revisions, the State and any affected local ortribal governments have elected to adopt the program provided for under section 110 and 182(b) ofthe CAA. These rules may bind State, local, and tribal governments to perform certain actions and alsorequire the private
sector toperform certain duties. To the extent that the rules being approved by this actionwill impose any mandate upon the State, local, ortribal governments eitheras theowner or operator ofasource oras aregulator, or would impose any mandate upon the private sector, EPA's action will impose

no new requirements; such sources are already subject to these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, orto the private sector, result from this action. EPA hasalso determined that this final action does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of$100 million or
more to State, local, ortribal governments inthe aggregate or to the private sector.
List ofSubjects in 40 CFRPart52



### Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Oxides ofnitrogen, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference ofthe StateImplementation Plan forthe State of California was approved by the Director of theFederal Register on July 1,1982.

Dated: July 5,1995. FeliciaMarcus, RegionalAdministrator.



### Part 52, chapter I,title 40 oftheCode ofFederal 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 paragraph (c)(204) toread as follows: 

### §52.220 Identificationofplan.

* * * * *



### (c) * * * 

### (204) New and amended plans and regulations for the following agencies

were submitted onNovember 15, 1994, by the Governor's designee. (i)Incorporation byreference. (A)California Air Resources Board. (1)Title 17, California Code of Regulations, Subchapter 8.5, Consumer Products,Article 1,Antiperspirants and Deodorants, Sections 94500-94506.5 and Article 2, ConsumerProducts, Sections 94507-94517, adopted on December 27, 1990, August 14, 1991, 

### and September 21, 1992.

(2) Title 13, California Code of Regulations, Diesel Fuel Regulations, Sections 2281-2282, adopted onAugust 22, 1989, June 21, 1990,April 15, 1991, October 15, 1993, and August 24, 1994.

(3)Title 13,California Code of Regulations, Reformulated Gasoline Regulations, Sections 2250, 2252, 2253.4, 2254, 2257, 2260, 2261, 2262.1, 2262.2, 2262.3, 2262.4, 2262.5, 2262.6, 2262.7, 2263, 2264, 2266-2272, and 2296, 2297, adopted onApril 1, 1991, May 23, 1991, and September 18, 1992.

(4) Long Term Measures, Improved Control Technology forLight-Duty Vehicles (Measure M2), Off-Road Industrial Equipment (Diesel), Consumer Products Long-Term Program (MeasureCP4), and Additional Measures (Possible Market-Incentive Measures and Possible Operational Measures Applicable to Heavy-Duty Vehicles), as contained in "The California State Implementation Plan for Ozone, Volume II: The AirResources Board's Mobile Source and Consumer Products Elements," adopted on November 15, 1994.

(B)South Coast Air Quality Management District.

(1)Long Term Measures, Advance Technology forCoating Technologies (Measure ADV-CTS-01), Advance Technology forFugitives (Measure ADV-FUG), Advance Technologies for Process Related Emissions (Measure ADV-PRC), AdvanceTechnologies for Unspecified Stationary Sources (MeasureADV-UNSP), and Advance Technology for Coating Technologies (MeasureADV-CTS-02), ascontained in the "1994 Air Quality Management Plan," adopted on September 9, 1994.

* * * * * [FR Doc. 95-20598 Filed 8-18-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-0-P



### 40CFR Part 52 [CA 126-1-7083a; FRL-5267-7] Approvaland Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, El Dorado CountyAir PollutionControl Districtand Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct finalrule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

### action onrevisions to the California State Implementation Plan. The revisions concern rules from the following districts: the ElDorado County Air Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD) and the Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). This approval action will incorporate these.rules intothe federally approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rules istoregulate emissions ofvolatile organic compounds (VOCs)iq accordance with the requirements ofthe Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAAor theAct). The revised rules controlVOC emissions from cutback and emulsified asphalt and the storage and transfer of organic liquids. Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval ofthese revisions into the California SIP under provisions ofthe CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs fornational primary and secondary ambient airquality standards, andplan requirements for nonattainment areas. DATES: This finalrule is effective on October 20, 1995 unless adverse or critical comments are received by September 20, 1995. Ifthe effective date is delayed, a timelynotice will be published in the Federal Register.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 43383 1995