+(,121/,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 of the shipyard if those

individuals are allowed to enter the

waters of Sinclair Inlet adjacent to the

shipyard. Moreover, persons swimming

or diving in these waters may be

exposed to numerous dangers associated

with the industrial 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 of the

security and safety conditions at the

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 a coordinate to

accommodate the extension of the south

end of "mooring A" maintaining a

buffer 100 yards south of the end of this

mooring, and to change the geographic

coordinates for the restricted area to

conform to the 1983 re-establishment of

the National Geodetic Vertical Datum.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a

notice of proposed 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 of this regulation

would be contrary to the public interest

because immediate action is necessary

to safeguard the security of the 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

of Sinclair Inlet as an interim measure

until the Corps could revise the existing

restricted area regulations. 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. The Corps 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 to be in the

public interest.,

Economic Assessment and Certification

This interim final rule is issued with

respect to a military function of the

Defense Department and the provisions

of Executive Order 12866 do not apply.

These interim final rules have been

reviewed under the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), which

requires the preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis for any regulation

that will have a significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities (i.e., small businesses and small

governments). The Corps has

determined that the economic impact of

the changes to the restricted area will

have practically no impact on the

public, no anticipated navigational

hazard or interference with existing

waterway traffic and accordingly, no

significant economic impact on small

entities.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334

Danger zones. Navigation (water),

Transportation.

In consideration of the above, the

Corps is amending part 334 of title 33

to read 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 Sinclair Inlet; Naval Restricted

Areas.

(a) Sinclair Inlet; naval restricted

areas.-(1) Area No. 1. All the waters of

Sinclair Inlet westerly of a 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 of Sinclair Inlet.

(2) Area No. 2. That area of Sinclair

Inlet to the north and west of an 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" W thence

southwest to latitude 47033'07"' N,

longitude 122038'29" W thence west to

latitude 47033'07 ' ' N, longitude

122038'58"' W thence southwest to

latitude 47033'041' N, longitude

122039'07" W thence west to the north

shore of Sinclair Inlet at latitude

47033'04"' N, longitude 122*39'41" W.

(3) The regulations. (i) Area No. 1. No

vessel of more than 100 gross tons shall

enter this area or navigate therein

without permission from the enforcing

agency.

(ii) This area is for the exclusive use

of the U.S. Navy. No person, vessel,

craft, article or thing except those under

supervision of military or naval

authority except Washington 'State

Ferries or Horluck 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,

Major General, USA, Director of Civil Works.

[FR Doc. 95-20588 Filed 8-18-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-42-M

40 CFR Part 52

[CAI 05-a-7055; 5270-6]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans; California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final and interim final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving state

implementation plan (SIP) revisions

submitted by the State of California 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 in California; and certain

new-technology measures adopted by

the California Air Resources Board

(CARB) and South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD). EPA is

finalizing the approval of these

revisions to the California SIP under

provisions of the Clean Air Act (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 for written

comments on the interim final SIP

actions (40 CFR 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 must be

received by EPA at the address below on

or before the close of the public

comment period. Comments should be

submitted (in duplicate, if possible) to:

Regional Administrator, Attention:

Office of Federal Planning (A-1-2), Air

and Toxics Division, Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105-3901.

Copies of the 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 of the rules are also available

for inspection at the 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 Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, California

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julia

Barrow, (415) 744-2434, at the Office of

Federal Planning (A-1-2), Air and

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 a revision to the California

SIP:

(1) The California Antiperspirants and

Deodorants regulations and Consumer

Products regulations, as contained in

Title 17 of the California Code of

Regulations, Sections 94500-94506.5

and 94507-94517, adopted on December

27, 1990, August 14, 1991, and

September 21, 1992;

2) The California Diesel Fuel

regulations, as contained in Title 13 of

the California Code of Regulations,

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 of the 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 of these rules and measures were

submitted as part of the 1994 California

SIP for Ozone. These portions of the

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 CFR Part 51

Appendix V. I

On February 14, 1995, the

Administrator signed a final approval

action on all of these rules and

measures, as part of the Notice of Final

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 of the FP and SIP actions

in the Federal Register. In the Notices

Section of this issue of the Federal

Register, EPA announces the FIP

rescission and cancellation of the 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 of the 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 criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 1 10(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

Because the proposed 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)

of the APA, since EPA cannot envision

any comment on the CARB measure

which could not have been made with

respect to EPA's FIP proposal. It is

therefore.unnecessary to solicit

additionalrcomment on the CARB

submittal, especially since EPA's role

with respect 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 if EPA had proposed

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to

approve the CARB submittal as a SIP

revision. EPA believes that the

appropriate issues for comment on the

SIP rule 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

the nearly indistinguishable State rules

is unnecessary and not in the 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 of the

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 of adopting 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 of flexibility

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 if they are unable to reformulate

a given product. In the event that a

future effective limit is revised by

CARB, EPA will work with CARB to

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 test methods, and variances

approved by CARB. In order to 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.

EPA is also working with CARB to

explore options to further streamline

EPA review of innovative product applcations.,

pne commenter indicated that EPA's

action should not subvert its efforts

under 183(e) of the Act. EPA believes

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 if a product label

indicates that the product is suitable for

use in more than one consumer product

category, the applicable VOC content

limit will be the lowest of the categories

for which suitability is claimed. EPA

believes that this provision, which is

also in the CARB rules, is important to

ensure that manufacturers do not make

multiple claims just 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 of VOC is not clear with

respect to the handling of negligibly

photochemically reactive compounds

and asked for clarification regarding

whether pre-market clearance was

needed from EPA. EPA believes the

handling of these compounds in the SIP

rule is adequate but could be further

clarified. EPA will work with CARB to

this end during its next rule revision.

EPA believes that there was no intent to

require a pre-market clearance but

rather that, for compliance purposes,

2 Although CARB did not submit the Alternative

Compliance Plan (ACP) regulation to EPA as part

of their November 15th submittal, CARB indicated

their intent to submit it to EPA in early 1995. EPA

intends to act on the ACP regulation as soon as it

is received.

manufacturers may be required to

demonstrate to regulators the amount of

negligibly reactive compounds claimed

to be in a given product.

A commenter suggested that EPA

should consider removing the VOC

content standard for the dual purpose

Air Freshener/Disinfectant product

category. Another commenter suggested

that EPA extend the compliance date for

aerosol fabric protectants to January 1,

1997. EPA believes that removing or

adjusting these standards would not be

prudent, and that GARB was technically

justified in creating the content

standards. In addition, because this is a

SIP action, it is not appropriate for EPA

to modify CARB's rule.

A commenting organization noted its

concern that the consumer product

measure has a disproportionate impact

on aerosols because CFCs and HCFCs

cannot legally be used as propellants

and-HFCs are not a viable option for use

in consumer products because of US

Department of Transportation

regulations and limited availability of

the product. The commenter

recommended that EPA maintain the

February 1995 HVOC limits in place

beyond 1999. EPA supports the future

effective VOC content limits originally

established by GARB. In this instance,

alternative product forms are readily

available or the source can seek an

alternative compliance option.

A commenter requested the removal

of the "grandfather clause" for

companies using ethanol prior to

January 1, 1994, and stated that the

antiperspirant and deodorant MVOC

standards should be modified to allow

fair competition 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 be reexamined in the near future.

EPA believes that this issue can best be

addressed by the affected parties

working with GARB to develop

suggested changes which will

accomplish or enhance the same overall

reduction goals. CARB's expected

reexamination does not affect EPA's SIP

approval at this time.

A commenter stated -that the

antiperspirant and deodorant limits are

not technologically feasible or realistic

and amount to a ban on the aerosol form

of these products. As mentioned

previously, EPA supports the future

effective limits originally established by

CARB. In this instance, alternative

product forms are readily available, or

the source can seek an alternative

compliance option.

B. California Diesel Fuel and

Reformulated Gasoline Rules

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 of oxides of nitrogen

(NOx) than fuels meeting EPA's current

low sulfur diesel specifications.

Similarly, California's Phase I and 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)

of the 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 of these programs as part of

the SIP has the same effect as the

original proposal on all regulated and

otherwise affected parties. Therefore,

approval of the submitted fuels

programs into the SIP may be finalized

without further opportunity for public

comment.

C. GARB and SCAQMD NewTechnology Measures

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 for its ozone attainment

demonstration and rate-of-progress after

the year 2000, if these measures anticipate new or improved technology

or control 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 for long-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 of a broad range of clean

technology development projects

sponsored by the SCAQMD's

Technology Advancement Office (TAO)

(Appendix IV-G) and lists of TAO

current or recently-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 and submit

them to the U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency no later than three years 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 for the 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 of progress

required under the Act.

EPA interprets the Act to allow EPA

to approve the State's new-technology

measures and credit them toward the

SIP's attainment demonstration, even

before EPA determines that the South

Coast ozone SIP attainment

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 10 years of

progress, the provisions of section

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 lack both

regulations and technical support or

even decisions regarding specific

directions and approaches. Complete

SIP rule elements are dependent upon

future years of research projects,

analyses of technologies and associated

commercial feasibility, public

workshops, and public 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 of the SIP submittal, ozone

attainment in the South Coast by the

year 2010. These initiatives rest upon

past accomplishments and extensive

present investments of both CARB and

SCAQMD in developing new clean

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. EPA found that

good cause existed to approve the'

State's measures, deferring further

notice and comment until after

promulgation, because of the impending

court deadline for FIP issuance and the

Agency's belief that the public interest

strongly favored approval of the newlyadopted SIP measures rather than

promulgation of Federal 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 of the 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 of the approval.

Commenters will not be disadvantaged,

since EPA 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 of post-promulgation

comments. Public comments must be

submitted in writing to EPA at the

address indicated at the beginning of

this document on or before 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

SIP rulemaking action on the submitted

regulations.

1. SCAQMD New-Technology Measures

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;

3 ROG (reactive organic gases) is used by

California in lieu of EPA's VOC. Unlike VOC, ROG

includes ethane.

Advance Tech-Unspecified,

Stationary Sources, ADV-UNSP,

adoption 2003, 67 tpd ROG;

Advance Tech-CTS (Coatings

Technologies), ADV-CTS-02, 54.7 tpd

ROG.

2. CARB New-Technology Measures

Improved Control Technology for

LDVs, M-2, adoption 2000,

implementation 2004-5, 2010 emission

reductions-10 tp d 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

tpd NOx. 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 of section 110(a) of the

CAA. This approval action will

incorporate these rules and measures

into the federally approved SIP. The

intended effect of approving these rules

and measures is to regulate emissions of

VOCs, NOx, sulfur oxides (SOx),

particulate matter, and air toxics in

accordance with the requirements of the

CAA.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting 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 of specific

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 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

business, small not-for-profit enterprises

and government entities with

jurisdiction over populations of less

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 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, 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 regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIP's on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. 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 law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in *estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector, or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate. Through submission of these SIP

revisions, the State and any affected

local or tribal governments have elected

to adopt the program provided for under

section 110 and 182(b) of the CAA.

These rules may bind State, local, and

tribal governments to perform certain

actions and also require the private

sector to perform certain duties. To the

extent that the rules being approved by

this action will impose any mandate

upon the State, local, or tribal

governments either as the owner or

operator of a source or as a regulator, 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, or to the private sector,

result from this action. EPA has also

determined that this final action does

not include a mandate that may result

in estimated costs of $100 million or

more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Oxides of nitrogen, Ozone, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements,

Volatile organic compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: July 5, 1995.

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 paragraph (c)(204) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * *

(c) * * *

(204) New and amended plans and

regulations for the following agencies

were submitted on November 15, 1994,

by the Governor's designee. (i) Incorporation by reference.

(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, Consumer Products,

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 on August

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 on April 1, 1991,

May 23, 1991, and September 18, 1992.

(4) Long Term Measures, Improved

Control Technology for Light-Duty

Vehicles (Measure M2), Off-Road

Industrial Equipment (Diesel),

Consumer Products Long-Term Program (Measure CP4), 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 Air Resources

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 for Coating Technologies

(Measure ADV-CTS-01), Advance

Technology for Fugitives (Measure

ADV-FUG), Advance Technologies for

Process Related Emissions (Measure

ADV-PRC), Advance Technologies for

Unspecified Stationary Sources

(Measure ADV-UNSP), and Advance

Technology for Coating Technologies

(Measure ADV-CTS-02), as contained

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

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 126-1-7083a; FRL-5267-7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, El

Dorado County Air Pollution Control

District and Yolo-Solano Air Quality

Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. The

revisions concern rules from the

following districts: the El Dorado

County Air Pollution Control District

(EDCAPCD) and the Yolo-Solano Air

Quality Management District

(YSAQMD). This approval action will

incorporate these. rules into the federally

approved SIP. The intended effect of

approving these rules is to regulate

emissions of volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) iq accordance with

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

The revised rules control VOC

emissions from cutback and emulsified

asphalt and the storage and transfer of

organic liquids. Thus, EPA is finalizing

the approval of these revisions into the

California SIP under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards, and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: This final rule is effective on

October 20, 1995 unless adverse or

critical comments are received by

September 20, 1995. If the effective date

is delayed, a timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

HeinOnline -- 60 Fed. Reg. 43383 1995