Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 179-0178; FRL-6442-7]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California

State Implementation Plan, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of

rules submitted to EPA as revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the control of particulate

matter (PM-10) emissions from fugitive dust sources in the San Joaquin

Valley.

The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited

disapproval of these rules is to regulate PM-10 emissions in accordance

with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or

the Act). EPA's final action on this proposed rule will incorporate

these rules into the federally approved SIP. EPA has evaluated the

rules and is proposing this action under provisions of the CAA

regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority

because these revisions, while strengthening the SIP, also do not fully

meet the CAA provisions regarding plan submissions and requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 8, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office

AIR-4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.

Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report of the rules are

available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are also available for

inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 E.

Gettysburg Ave., Fresno, CA 93726

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4,

Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 Telephone: (415) 744-

1903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being proposed for incorporation into the California SIP

include the following San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District (SJVUAPCD) Regulation VIII rules: Rule 8010, Fugitive Dust

Administrative Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM-

10); Rule 8020, Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine

Particulate Matter (PM-10) from Construction, Demolition, Excavation,

Extraction Activities; Rule 8030, Fugitive Dust Requirements for

Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10) from Handling and Storage of

Bulk Materials; Rule 8040, Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of

Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10) from Landfill Disposal Sites; Rule

8060, Fugitive Dust Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter

(PM-10) from Paved and Unpaved Roads and; Rule 8070, Fugitive Dust

Requirements for Control of Fine Particulate Matter (PM-10) from

Vehicle and/or Equipment Parking, Shipping, Receiving, Transfer,

Fueling, and Service Areas. These rules were submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on July 23, 1996.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of total suspended

particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas under the provisions of the 1977

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977, that included the San Joaquin Valley

Air Basin (43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305). On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672)

EPA replaced the TSP standards with new PM standards applying only to

PM up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10).1 On November 15,

1990, amendments to the CAA were enacted. Public Law 101-549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q. On the date of enactment of the

1990 CAA Amendments, PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of section

107(d)(4)(B) of the Act, including the San Joaquin Valley Air

Basin,2 were designated nonattainment by operation of law

and classified as moderate pursuant to section 188(a). Under section

189(a) of the CAA, moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must implement by

December 10, 1993 Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) rules

for PM-10.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ On July 18, 1997 EPA promulgated revised and new standards

for PM-10 and PM-2.5 (62 FR 38651). The U.S. Court of Appeals for

the D.C. Circuit in American Trucking Assoc., Inc., et al. v. USEPA,

No. 97-1440 (May 14, 1999) issued an opinion that, among other

things, vacated the new standards for PM-10 that were published on

July 18, 1997 and became effective September 16, 1997. However, the

PM-10 standards promulgated on July 1, 1987 were not an issue in

this litigation, and the Court's decision does not affect the

applicability of those standards in this area. Codification of those

standards continue to be recorded at 40 CFR 50.6. In the notice

promulgating the new PM-10 standards, the EPA Administrator decided

that the previous PM-10 standards that were promulgated on July 1,

1987, and provisions associated with them, would continue to apply

in areas subject to the 1987 PM-10 standards until certain

conditions specified in 40 CFR 50.6(d) are met. See 62 FR at 38701.

EPA has not taken any action under 40 CFR 50.6(d) for this area.

Today's proposed action relates only to the CAA requirements

concerning the PM-10 standards as originally promulgated in 1987.

\2\ San Joaquin Valley Air Basin is under the jurisdiction of

the SJVUAPCD.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On February 8, 1993, EPA reclassified five moderate nonattainment

areas, including the San Joaquin Valley Air Basin, to serious

nonattainment pursuant to section 188(b)(58 FR 3334). Section 189(b)

requires serious nonattainment areas to implement Best Available

Control Measures (BACM) by February 8, 1997, four years after

reclassification.3

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Because the statutory RACM and BACM implementation deadlines

have passed, RACM and BACM must be implemented ``as soon as

possible.'' Delaney v. EPA, 898 F.2d 687, 691 (9th Cir. 1990). EPA

has interpreted this requirement to be ``as soon as practicable.''

55 FR 36458, 36505 (September 9, 1990). States are required to

develop RACM and BACM that address both the annual and 24-hour PM-10

standards. Ober v. EPA, 84 F.3d 304, 308-311 (9th Cir. 1996).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In response to section 110(a) and part D of the Act, local

California air pollution control districts have adopted and the State

of California has submitted many PM-10 rules to EPA for incorporation

into the California SIP on July 23, 1996, including the rules

referenced above that are proposed for action in this document. These

rules were adopted by the SJVUAPCD on April 25, 1996 and were found to

be

[[Page 51490]]

complete on October 30, 1996 pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.4 Rule

8010, Rule 8020, Rule 8030, Rule 8040, Rule 8060 and Rule 8070 control

particulate emissions from fugitive dust sources and are being proposed

for limited approval and limited disapproval. These rules were adopted

and submitted to EPA as part of SJVUAPCD's efforts to meet the RACM

requirements of CAA 189(a) for moderate PM-10 nonattainment

areas.5 PM-10 emissions can harm human health and the

environment. The following is EPA's evaluation of and proposed action

on the rules.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990

(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA,

revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

\5\ See, e.g., Memorandum from David L. Crow, Executive

Director/APCO, to SJVUAPCD Governing Board, dated April 25, 1996.

This document was an enclosure in the submittal of the rules that

are the subject of this proposed action. See also letter from

Michael H. Scheible, CARB, to Felicia Marcus, EPA, dated July 23,

1996; Rule 8010, section 1.0: ``The Rules in this Regulation [VIII]

have been developed pursuant to United States Environmental

Protection Agency guidance for Moderate Nonattainment Areas.''

Emphasis added.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

In determining the approvability of a PM-10 rule, EPA must evaluate

the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR

part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). EPA must also ensure that rules are enforceable

and strengthen or maintain the SIP's control strategy.

Finally, in order for EPA to approve the SIP revision, EPA must

determine that the SIP submittal complies with CAA section 110(l).

Section 110(l) states that the ``Administrator shall not approve a

revision of a plan if the revision would interfere with any applicable

requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * *

or any other applicable requirement of (the Clean Air) Act.''

The statutory provisions relating to RACM and BACM are found in CAA

section 189(a) and (b) and are discussed in EPA's ``General Preamble,''

which gives the Agency's preliminary views on how EPA intends to act on

SIPs submitted under Title I of the CAA. See 57 FR 13498 (April 16,

1992), 57 FR 18070 (April 28, 1992), and 59 FR 41998 (August 16, 1994).

In this proposed action, EPA is applying these policies to this

submittal, taking into consideration the specific factual issues

presented.

For moderate PM-10 areas reclassified as serious, the nonattainment

control requirements (i.e., RACM) are carried over and elevated to a

higher level of stringency (i.e., BACM). 59 FR 42009. Thus, generally,

if a control measure meets the statutory requirements for BACM, it will

also meet those for RACM.6 Moreover, since these fugitive

dust rules were adopted, the area has been reclassified to serious and

the BACM implementation deadline has passed. The reader should consult

the General Preamble documents for detailed discussions of both the

RACM and BACM requirements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ The General Preamble suggests as the starting point for

specifying RACM for fugitive dust sources, the list of available

control measures in appendix C1 and those put forth during the

public period. 57 FR 13540, 18073. If it can be shown that a

particular measure is unreasonable because emissions from affected

sources are de minimis, it may be excluded from further

consideration. The remaining available measures are then evaluated

for reasonableness, considering their technological feasibility and

the cost of control in the area. 57 FR 13540.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA defines BACM as ``the maximum degree of emissions reduction of

PM-10 and PM-10 precursors from a source * * * which is determined on a

case-by-case basis, taking into account energy, environmental, and

economic impacts and other costs, to be achievable for such source

through application of production processes and available methods,

systems, and techniques for control of each such pollutant.'' 59 FR

42010. EPA exempts from the BACM requirement de minimis source

categories, which do not contribute significantly to nonattainment. 59

FR 42011.

For the purpose of assisting state and local agencies in developing

RACM and BACM rules, EPA has prepared a series of guidance documents on

PM-10 source categories (See CAA section 190). The technical guidance

document applicable to Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060 and 8070 is

entitled ``Fugitive Dust Background Document and Technical Information

Document for Best Available Control Measures' (EPA-450/2-92-004).

There are currently no versions of SJVUAPCD Rules 8010, 8020, 8030,

8040, 8060 and 8070 in the SIP. Earlier versions of these rules were

adopted on October 21, 1993 and September 14, 1994 (Rule 8010) and

submitted to EPA. However, before EPA acted on these versions, the

State submitted the rules that are the subject of today's proposed

action. While these later rules supersede the earlier versions, EPA

reviewed relevant materials associated with the superseded versions.

SJVUAPCD's Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060 and 8070 would, if

approved, incorporate the following significant provisions into the

SIP:

Definitions and Requirements: Rule 8010 establishes

definitions that apply to the fugitive dust sources covered under

Regulation VIII rules and places requirements on dust suppressants.

Construction/Demolition Site Disturbances: Rule 8020

requires watering or pre-soaking for land clearing and other operations

which disturb the soil surface, stabilization of inactive disturbed

areas, stabilization of unpaved on-site roads and off-site unpaved

access roads, the removal or limitation of mud or dirt track-out onto

public paved roads, and use of a dust suppressant or gravel on vehicle

and material storage areas per Rule 8070.

Bulk Material Handling and Storage: Rule 8030 requires

enclosure or wetting of material on chutes or conveyor devices,

fugitive dust controls for transport of bulk materials in open

vehicles, trailers, rail cars or containers, cleanup of track-out from

transport of bulk materials onto public adjacent paved roads, and

stabilization of outdoor storage piles.

Landfill Disposal Sites: Rule 8040 requires cleanup of mud

or dirt track-out onto public adjacent paved roads, paving and cleaning

a portion of interior landfill site roads to limit track-out, and use

of a dust suppressant or gravel on vehicle and material storage areas

per Rule 8070.

New Paved Roads: Rule 8060 establishes specific paving or

chemical stabilization requirements for curbs and medians of paved

roads or road segments 3 miles or more in length that are constructed

or modified after December 10, 1993 and experience average daily trips

of 500 vehicles or more.

New Unpaved Roads: Rule 8060 establishes surface

stabilization requirements that affect at least a portion of the length

of unpaved roads or road segments greater than \1/2\ mile in length

constructed or modified after December 10, 1993.

Unpaved Vehicle and Equipment Parking Areas: Rule 8070

requires the application of a dust suppressant or gravel on all unpaved

parking areas that are 1 acre or larger in size on days they are used,

and the removal or limitation of mud or dirt track-out onto public

paved roads.

EPA has evaluated SJVUAPCD's Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060,

and 8070 for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy

and has found that although they will strengthen the SIP, the rules

contain a number of deficiencies, the most significant of

[[Page 51491]]

which are discussed below. A detailed discussion of rule deficiencies

and recommended rule improvements can be found in the Technical Support

Document (TSD) associated with this rulemaking.

The Regulation VIII rules containing capacity limits

define Visible Dust Emissions (VDE) as 40% opacity for an aggregate

period of 3 minutes or more in any one hour. This is the primary

standard upon which the Regulation VIII rules are based. However,

considerable PM-10 fugitive dust can be released into the ambient air

without exceeding a 40% opacity reading. Moreover, EPA believes, based

on the precedent established in other PM-10 nonattainment areas, that

this standard does not represent RACM or BACM.

The Regulation VIII rules lack appropriate standards and/

or test methods that would ensure a level of control consistent with

RACM or BACM.

The exemptions (including the thresholds of source

coverage selected by SJVUAPCD to represent RACM) found in the

Regulation VIII rules are not supported. In order to address this

deficiency, either a sufficient demonstration per EPA's BACM guidance

7 justifying the exemption is required, or the source

coverage needs to be revised to reflect a BACM level of control. Some

of the more significant exemptions from rule coverage are listed below;

all of the exemptions are discussed in the TSD.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\7\ 59 FR 41998-42017, August 16, 1994.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 8060 requirements only apply to paved and unpaved

roads that were constructed or modified after December 10, 1993. Also,

the rule exempts paved roads/road segments less than 3 miles in length

and unpaved roads/road segments less than \1/2\ mile in length.

For unpaved roads that are covered under Rule 8060,

control measures are only required on 50% or less of the road length.

Rule 8030 lacks requirements to control fugitive dust from

the loading and unloading of bulk materials, the addition of bulk

materials to storage piles, and the removal of bulk materials from

storage piles.

Rule 8070 only applies to unpaved parking lots greater

than one (1) acre.

Rule 8010, sections 3.23 and 3.27, and Rule 8060, section

5.1.4 contain inappropriate Executive Officer discretion which could

result in enforceability problems and is therefore inconsistent with

the Clean Air Act section 110.

Rule 8010, section 4.2 and Rule 8020, section 4.2 exempt

sources with existing permits or approved PM-10 mitigation programs,

respectively, that provide equally stringent control of fugitive PM-10

emissions. There is no means to ensure that the level of control in the

permit is as stringent as in Regulation VIII.

Because the sources subject to Rule 8020 are temporary in

nature, there must be a method, e.g., a dust control permit or

comparable mechanism, to identify sources so that the rule can be

enforced.

EPA lacks information to evaluate under EPA's BACM

guidance the rule's allowance of a 7-day period in which inactive

storage piles can remain uncontrolled. A 7-day period does not appear

to be warranted, as during this time significant wind erosion emissions

can occur and temporary stabilization can be achieved through watering

or covering/enclosure of piles. Also, Rule 8020 lacks a definition of

storage piles.

In numerous sections of the Regulation VIII rules, the

term ``limit'' is used. This word does not establish a firm threshold

upon which to base compliance with the rules' requirements.

Rule 8020, section 5.4.3 strongly encourages, but does not

require, the use of paved access aprons, gravel strips, wheel washers,

or other measures designed to limit mud and dirt deposits on public

paved roads. A requirement would better ensure that track-out is

prevented. Similar measures for track-out are required in other serious

PM-10 nonattainment areas, which suggests that this measure is feasible

as a best available practice in SJVUAPCD.

Rule 8020, section 5.5 and Rule 8040, section 5.4 require

that all areas used for storage of construction vehicles, equipment,

and materials comply with Rule 8070. The term ``storage'' needs to be

defined in order to clarify the circumstances under which Rule 8070

requirements apply to the parking activities of sources covered under

Rules 8020 and 8040. The rules should also clarify whether the 1 acre

unpaved parking lot compliance threshold in Rule 8070, below which

sources are exempt, also applies to sources covered under Rules 8020

and 8040.

Rule 8060, section 5.2.2 allows watering the entire length

of a new unpaved road surface at least once a week as a control measure

option. Rule 8070, section 4.1.1 allows watering unpaved parking lots

once a day as a control measure option. EPA believes these control

measures are too temporal to represent RACM or BACM on unpaved surfaces

that receive regular vehicle use.

The Regulation VIII rules lack recordkeeping requirements

for sources subject to controls, with the exception of Rule 8060

coverage of new paved roads. Recordkeeping is needed in order to verify

compliance with the requirements or limits established by the rules.

These deficiencies may lead to enforceability problems and/or are

not supported as representing RACM and BACM and are, therefore, not

consistent with sections 172(c)(6), 189(a)(1)(C), and 189(b)(1)(B) of

the CAA. Moreover, to the extent that the rules do not represent RACM

and BACM, under section 110(l), EPA cannot fully approve them.

As a result, EPA cannot grant full approval of these rules under

section 110(k)(3) and part D. Also, because the submitted rules are not

composed of separable parts that meet all the applicable requirements

of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval of the rules under

section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited approval of the

submitted rules under section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority

pursuant to section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further

air quality by strengthening the SIP. The approval is limited because

EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited disapproval. In order

to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited approval of

SJVUAPCD's submitted Regulation VIII Rules 8010, 8020, 8030, 8040, 8060

and 8070 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA.

At the same time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of

these rules because they contain deficiencies and, as such, the rules

do not fully meet the requirements of part D of the Act. Under section

179(a)(2), if the Administrator disapproves a submission under section

110(k) for an area designated nonattainment, based on the submission's

failure to meet one or more of the elements required by the Act, the

Administrator must apply one of the sanctions set forth in section

179(b) unless the deficiency has been corrected within 18 months of

such disapproval. Section 179(b) provides two sanctions available to

the Administrator: highway funding and offsets. The 18 month period

referred to in section 179(a) will begin on the effective date of EPA's

final limited disapproval. Moreover, the final disapproval triggers the

Federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under section 110(c). It

should be noted that the rules covered by this action have been adopted

by the SJVUAPCD and are currently in effect in the SJVUAPCD. EPA's

final limited

[[Page 51492]]

disapproval action will not prevent SJVUAPCD or EPA from enforcing the

rules.

Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or

allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for

revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to

the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light

of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and

Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by

statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal

government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary

to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or

EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting,

Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of

Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior

consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal

governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written

communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the

need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875

requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected

officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal

governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development

of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.''

Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal

governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these

entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of Executive

Order 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

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 is does not involve decisions intended

to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the

communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal

government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those

governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a

separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a

description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with

representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature

of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the

regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop

an effective process permitting elected officials and other

representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful

and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters

that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule

does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian

tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. 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 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).

F. 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

annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;

or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA

must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative

that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan

for informing and advising any small governments that may be

significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.

EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

[[Page 51493]]

Dated: September 10, 1999.

David P. Howekamp,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 9.

[FR Doc. 99-24843 Filed 9-22-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P