Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision; Amador County Air Pollution Control District and Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 207-0114a; FRL-6229-7]

Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plans;

California State Implementation Plan Revision; Amador County Air

Pollution Control District and Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution

Control 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 (SIP). The revisions concern rules

from the Amador County Air Pollution Control District (ACAPCD) and the

Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District (NSCAPCD). This

action will remove these rules from the federally approved SIP. The

intended effect of this action is to remove rules from the SIP in

accordance with the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

Thus, EPA is finalizing the removal of these rules from the California

SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP submittals

and SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality

standards.

DATES: This rule is effective on April 12, 1999, without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 11, 1999. If EPA

receives such comment, then it will publish a timely withdrawal in the

Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region

IX office listed below. Copies of these rules, along with EPA's

evaluation

[[Page 6229]]

report for each rule, are available for public inspection at EPA's

Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted

requests for rescission are also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street,

SW, Washington, DC 20460.

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.

Amador County Air Pollution Control District, 500 Argonaut Lane,

Jackson, CA 95642.

Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District, 150 Matheson

Street, Healdsburg, CA 95448-4908.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Yvonne Fong, Rulemaking Office (AIR-

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

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The ACAPCD rules being removed from the California SIP are: Rule

213.2, Organic Solvents; and Rule 213.3, Disposal and Evaporation of

Solvents. The NSCAPCD rules being removed from the California SIP are:

Rule 56, Sulfide Emission Standard; Rule 64, Organic Solvents; Rule

64.1, Architectural Coatings; and Rule 64.2, Disposal and Evaporation

of Solvents. The ACAPCD adopted Rules 213.2 and 213.3 on July 18, 1972

and repealed them on June 16, 1981. The NSCAPCD adopted Rules 56, 64,

64.1, and 64.2 on June 30, 1972 and repealed them on November 10, 1976.

On September 30, 1997 and October 7, 1997, the ACAPCD and NSCAPCD's

Boards of Directors respectively adopted resolutions requesting the

removal of these rules from the California SIP. The California Air

Resources Board (CARB) submitted to EPA both Districts' requests for

removal of these rules from the SIP on March 10, 1998.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of the ozone and sulfur

dioxide attainment areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as

amended in 1977 (1977 Act or pre-amended Act). 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR

81.305. The Amador County Area was included among the areas in

attainment for ozone and the North Coast Air Basin Area, which

encompasses Northern Sonoma County, was included among the areas in

attainment for ozone and sulfur dioxide. The rules being addressed in

this action were originally adopted by the ACAPCD and the NSCAPCD as

part of their efforts to maintain the National Ambient Air Quality

Standard (NAAQS) for ozone and sulfur dioxide. These rules were

originally adopted to control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions

from organic solvents, architectural coatings, and the disposal and

evaporation of solvents and to provide a sulfide emission standard.

Because the Amador County and North Coast Air Basin Areas have never

been classified as nonattainment pursuant to Section 107 of the Act for

the pollutants listed above, these rules were not required by the Act.

The ACAPCD and NSCAPCD removed these rules from their district rule

books on June 16, 1981 and November 10, 1976, respectively. The ACAPCD

and NSCAPCD have certified through resolutions adopted by their Boards

of Directors on September 30, 1997 and October 7, 1997 that rescission

of these rules will not result in emissions increases or otherwise

interfere with any applicable provisions of the CAA.

On March 10, 1998, ACAPCD and NSCAPCD submitted requests to EPA,

through CARB, for the removal of ACAPCD Rules 213.2 and 213.3 and

NSCAPCD Rules 56, 64, 64.1, and 64.2 from the California SIP.

III. EPA Action

The following ACAPCD rules rescinded by today's action were

previously approved into the California SIP by EPA:

--Rule 213.2, Organic Solvents, adopted July 18, 1972, approved January

24, 1978 (43 FR 3275).

--Rule 213.3, Disposal and Evaporation of Solvents, adopted July 18,

1972, approved January 24, 1978 (43 FR 3275).

The following NSCAPCD rules rescinded by today's action were

previously approved into the California SIP by EPA:

--Rule 56, Sulfide Emission Standard, adopted June 30, 1972, approved

September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).

--Rule 64, Organic Solvents, adopted June 30, 1972, approved September

22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).

--Rule 64.1, Architectural Coatings, adopted June 30, 1972, approved

September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).

--Rule 64.2, Disposal and Evaporation of Solvents, adopted June 30,

1972, approved September 22, 1972 (37 FR 19812).

EPA is publishing this document without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no

adverse comments. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this

Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document

that will serve as the proposal to approve these SIP revisions should

adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective April 12, 1999,

without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by

March 11, 1999.

If EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document

withdrawing this final rule and informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments received will then be addressed in

a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties

interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If

no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule

will be effective on April 12, 1999 and no further action will be taken

on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory

Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

Under E.O. 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, E.O. 12875 requires

EPA to provide to the OMB 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, E.O. 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.''

[[Page 6230]]

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 E.O. 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 E.O.

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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to

provide to the OMB, 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an

effective process permitting elected 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 E.O. 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, but will simply remove

previously-approved SIP requirements that are no longer in effect.

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 a 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 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 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.

G. 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. This rule is not a

``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. 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 April 12, 1999. 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds,

Sulfur oxides.

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: January 25, 1999.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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 et seq.

Subpart F--California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(6)(xvi) and

(c)(31)(xviii)(E) to read as follows:

[[Page 6231]]

Sec. 52.220 Identification of Plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(6) * * *

(xvi) Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution Control District.

(A) Previously approved on September 22, 1972 and now deleted

without replacement Rules 56, 64, 64.1 and 64.2.

* * * * *

(31) * * *

(xviii) * * *

(E) Previously approved on January 24, 1978 and now deleted without

replacement Rules 213.2 and 213.3.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-2782 Filed 2-8-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P