[Federal Register: April 16, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 73)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 18546-18548]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr16ap03-7]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 241-0392; FRL-7471-4]
Revisions to the Arizona State Implementation Plan and California
State Implementation Plan, Maricopa County Environmental Services
Department and Bay Area Air Quality Management District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of revisions to the Maricopa County Environmental Services Department
portion of the Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) and the Bay Area
Air Quality Management District portion of the California SIP. This
action was proposed in the Federal Register on June 5, 2002, and
concerns volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from solvent
cleaning operations. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in
1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves a local rule
that regulates these emission sources and directs Arizona and
California to correct rule deficiencies.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on May 16, 2003.
ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can
inspect copies of the submitted SIP revisions at the following
locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San
Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Maricopa County environmental Services Department, Air Quality
Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Suite 201, Phoenix, AZ 85004.
Bay Area Air Quality Management District, 939 Ellis Street, San
Francisco, CA 94109.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4118.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Proposed Action
On June 5, 2002 (67 FR 38630), EPA proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for
incorporation into the Arizona and California SIPs.
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule Rule title Revised Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MCESD..................................... 331 Solvent Cleaning............. 04/07/99 08/04/99
BAAQMD.................................... 8-16 Solvent Cleaning Operations.. 09/15/98 03/28/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these
rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because
some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the Act.
The provisions in MCESD rule 331 include the following:
[sbull] The provisions of this rule exempt sources that are not
necessarily covered by another federally approved rule.
[sbull] Subsections of this rule provide methods of determining
capture efficiency, but do not refer to EPA's January 9, 1995, guidance
document, Guidelines for Determining Capture Efficiency, describing
calculation procedures.
[sbull] Sections II and III of the appendix to this rule do not
clarify which and how standards are adjusted for boiling point.
[sbull] Section I-6 of the appendix to this rule raise the
threshold limit from 10.75 sq ft to 13 sq ft for additional control
without adequately justifying this relaxation.
The provisions in BAAQMD rule 8-16 include the following:
[sbull] Section 8-16-501.2 allows facility-wide make-up solvent
recording on an annual basis, which is not sufficient to ensure that
the rule is enforceable pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2)(A).
[sbull] Rule 8-16 contains a number of incorrect section references
that may result in enforcement ambiguity.
Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we did not receive any comments.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing a limited
approval of the submitted rules. This action incorporates the submitted
rules into the Arizona and California SIPs, respectively, including
those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section
110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of
the rules. As a result,
[[Page 18547]]
sanctions will be imposed unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions
that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the effective
date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under section 179
of the CAA according to 40 CFR 52.31. In addition, EPA must promulgate
a federal implementation plan (FIP) under section 110(c) unless we
approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule deficiencies
within 24 months. Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by
the MCESD and BAAQMD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not
prevent the local agencies from enforcing them.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not impose an information collection burden under
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.)
C. 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 rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 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 approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
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 approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does
not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and
responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 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.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
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.
[[Page 18548]]
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
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.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise
impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
section 804(2). This rule will be effective May 16, 2003.
K. 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 June 16, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 5, 2003.
Alexis Strauss,
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 D--Arizona
0
2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(94)(i)(G) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(94) * * *
(i) * * *
(G) Rule 331, revised on April 7, 1999.
* * * * *
Subpart F--California
0
3. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(277)(i)(C)(3) to
read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(277) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(3) Rule 8-16, adopted on March 7, 1979 and amended on September
15, 1998.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 03-9041 Filed 4-15-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P