[Federal Register: September 16, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 179)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 54167-54170]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16se03-6]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA-271-0412a; FRL-7551-8]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey
Bay Unified and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control
Districts
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD)
and the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern volatile organic compounds (VOC) emissions from
organic solvents, animal reduction, leather processing, and industries
coating glass products. We are approving and rescinding local rules
that regulate these emissions sources under authority of the Clean Air
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act)).
DATES: This rule is effective on November 17, 2003 without further
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 16, 2003. 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 or email to
steckel.andrew@epa.gov. You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP 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 SIP
revisions at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail
Code 6102T), Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud
Ct., Monterey, CA 93940-6536.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E. Gettysburg,
Fresno, CA 93726.
A copy of the rules may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm.
Please be advised that this is not an
EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rules that
were submitted to EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415)
947-4120.
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 rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules
D. 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 54168]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule
Local agency number Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Monterey................................. 414 Reduction of Animal Matter. 08/21/02 10/16/02
Monterey................................. 430 Leather Processing 08/21/02 10/16/02
Operations (rescission).
San Joaquin.............................. 4610 Glass Coating Operations... 12/19/02 04/01/03
San Joaquin.............................. 4661 Organic Solvents........... 05/16/02 08/06/02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 3, 2002 (MBUAPCD), August 30, 2002 (SJVUAPCD Rule 4661)
and May 13, 2003 (SJVUAPCD Rule 4610), 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?
MBUAPCD adopted a version of Rule 414 on December 13, 1984 and Rule
430 on January 15, 1997, which EPA approved into the SIP on July 13,
1987 (52 FR 26148) and February 9, 1999 (64 FR 6226), respectively.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4610 is a new rule. EPA has not reviewed and approved
into the SIP any prior version of the rule. SJVUAPCD adopted a version
of Rule 4661 on December 20, 2001, which EPA approved into the SIP on
July 22, 2002 (67 FR 47701).
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
MBUAPCD Rule 414 has been revised by reformatting the rule to be
consistent with the District's standard format.
MBUAPCD Rule 430 is being rescinded because there are no longer any
affected sources.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4610 is a new rule and is designed to decrease VOC
emissions from industries coating glass products with VOC containing
materials. The rule contains general VOC emission limits and speciality
coating VOC emission limits for mirror backing, optical, electric
dissipating, and metallic coatings. Also, the rule contains
requirements for solvent cleaning, storage and disposal, application
equipment, and emission control equipment.
SJVUAPCD Rule 4661 has been revised to exempt sources applicable to
Rule 4610 from the requirements of Rule 4661.
The TSDs have more information about these rules.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The
SJVUAPCD regulates an ozone nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
Rules 4610 and 4661 must fulfill RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate
specific enforceability and RACT requirements consistently include the
following:
1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide
policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
2. ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and
Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook).
3. ``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001 (the Little Bluebook).
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP relaxations. The TSDs
have 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 rules and rule rescission because we believe
they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will
object to this approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it
in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal
Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same
submitted rules and rule recission. If we receive adverse comments by
October 16, 2003, 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 November 17, 2003. This will incorporate these rules and
rescission into the federally enforceable SIP.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment,
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
III. Background Information
Why Were These Rules Submitted?
VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of
the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency
VOC 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.
May 15, 1991...................... Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that
ozone nonattainment areas correct
deficient RACT rules by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 54169]]
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget 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 13132
Executive Order 13132, 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, because it
merely acts on 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.
D. Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
Moreover, in the spirit of Executive Order 13175, and consistent
with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and tribal
governments, EPA specifically solicited comment on the proposed rule
from tribal officials.
E. Executive Order 13211
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001)) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
F. 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 act on 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.
Therefore, 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).
G. 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
the 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 acts on pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no
[[Page 54170]]
additional costs to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the
private sector, result from this action.
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.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
I. 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).
J. 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 November 17, 2003. 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, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: August 5, 2003.
Debbie Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F--California
0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(245)(i)(C)(2),
(302)(i)(B)(3), (303)(i)(C)(2), and (315)(i)(B)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(245) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Previously approved on February 9, 1999 in (245)(i)(C)(l) and
now deleted without replacement Rule 430.
* * * * *
(302) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(3) Rule 414, adopted on August 21, 2002.
* * * * *
(303) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 4661, adopted on May 16, 2002.
* * * * *
(315) * * *
(i) * * *
(B) * * *
(2) Rule 4610, adopted on December 19, 2002.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-23588 Filed 9-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P