Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Arizona and California; General Conformity Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA126-0129a; FRL-6233-1]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans for Arizona and

California; General Conformity Rules

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action approves various revisions to State Implementation

Plans (SIP) which contain regulations for implementing and enforcing

the general conformity rules which the EPA promulgated on November 30,

1993. EPA is approving SIP revisions which contain general conformity

rules for the Arizona SIP and the California SIP for the following

California Air Pollution Control Districts (APCD) and Air Quality

Management Districts (AQMD): El Dorado County APCD, Great Basin Unified

APCD, Monterey Bay Unified APCD, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Santa

Barbara County APCD, South Coast AQMD, Feather River AQMD, Placer

County APCD, Sacramento Metro AQMD, Imperial County APCD, Bay Area

AQMD, San Diego County APCD, Butte County AQMD, Ventura County APCD,

Mojave Desert AQMD and Yolo-Solano AQMD.

The approval of these general conformity rules into the SIP will

result in the SIP criteria and procedures governing general conformity

determinations instead of the Federal rules at 40 CFR Part 93, Subpart

B for those actions under the jurisdiction of the SIPs. Federal actions

by the Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit

Administration (under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act) are

covered by the transportation conformity rules under 40 CFR Part 51,

Subpart T-Conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans of

Transportation Plans, Programs, and Projects Developed, Funded or

Approved Under Title 23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act (and 40 CFR

Part 93, Subpart A) and are not affected by this action.

EPA approves these SIP revisions under sections 110(k) and 176(c)

of the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). A more detailed discussion of

this action is provided below and in the support documentation.

DATES: This rule is effective on June 22, 1999 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 24, 1999. If EPA receives

such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal

Register informing the public that this rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to: Doris Lo, Planning

Office [AIR2], Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

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

Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report are

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

business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions are also

available for inspection at the following locations:

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, 3033 North Central

Avenue, Phoenix, Arizona 85012

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, P.O. Box 2815,

Sacramento, California 95812

El Dorado County APCD, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, California

95667

Great Basin Unified APCD, 157 Short Street, Suite #6, Bishop,

California 93514

Monterey Bay Unified APCD, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey,

California 93940

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, 1999 Tuolumne Street, Suite 200,

Fresno, California 93721

Santa Barbara County APCD, 26 Castillian Drive, B-23, Goleta,

California 93117

South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California

91765-4182

Feather River AQMD, 463 Palora Avenue, Yuba City, California 95991-

4711

Placer County APCD, 11464 B Avenue, Auburn, California 95603

Sacramento Metro AQMD, 8411 Jackson Road, Sacramento, California

95826

Bay Area AQMD, 939 Ellis Street, San Francisco, California 94109

Imperial County APCD, 150 South Ninth Street, El Centro, California

92243-2850

San Diego County, APCD 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San Diego, California

92123-1096

Butte County AQMD, 9287 Midway, Suite 1A, Durham, California 95938

Ventura County APCD, 669 County Square Drive, Ventura, California

93003

Mojave Desert AQMD, 15428 Civic Drive, Suite 200 Victorville,

California 92392-2383

[[Page 19917]]

Yolo-Solano AQMD, 1947 Galileo Court, Suite 103, Davis, California

95616

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Lo, Planning Office (AIR2), Air

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

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1287.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 176(c) of the Act requires that all Federal actions conform

to an applicable implementation plan. Conformity is defined in section

176(c) of the Act as conformity to the SIP's purpose of eliminating or

reducing the severity and number of violations of the National Ambient

Air Quality Standards and achieving expeditious attainment of such

standards, and that such activities will not: (1) Cause or contribute

to any new violation of any standard in any area, (2) increase the

frequency or severity of any existing violation of any standard in any

area, or (3) delay timely attainment of any standard or any required

interim emission reductions or other milestones in any area.

As required by section 176(c) of the Act, EPA published the final

general conformity rules implementing this statutory section on

November 30, 1993 (58 FR 63214), which are codified under 40 CFR part

51 subpart W--Determining Conformity of General Federal Actions to

State or Federal Implementation Plans. Among other things, EPA's

general conformity rules require the States and local air quality

agencies (where applicable) to adopt and submit a general conformity

SIP revision to EPA which are ``no less stringent than the

requirements'' of Subpart W (40 CFR Part 51.851(b)). See also,

Sec. 176(c)(4)(C).

The governors of Arizona and California submitted SIP revisions in

accordance with 40 CFR part 51, subpart W that contained general

conformity rules for the following areas on the following dates

summarized below.

Arizona Rule and Submittal Date

--Arizona Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article 14,

Conformity Determinations, 3/3/95

California District Rules and Submittal Dates

--El Dorado County APCD, Rule 502 General Conformity Rule, 11/30/94

--Great Basin Unified APCD, Reg XIII Conformity of General Federal

Actions to SIPs, 11/30/94

--Monterey Bay Unified APCD, (Appendix G) General Conformity, 11/30/94

--San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Rule 9110 General Conformity, 11/30/

94

--Santa Barbara County APCD, Rule 702 General Conformity, 11/30/94

--South Coast AQMD, Rule 1901 General Conformity, 11/30/94

--Feather River AQMD, Rule 10.4 General Conformity, 12/22/94

--Placer County APCD, Rule 508 General Conformity, 12/22/94

--Sacramento Metro AQMD, Rule 104 General Conformity, 12/22/94

--Bay Area AQMD, Federal General Conformity Regulation, 12/28/94

--Imperial County APCD, Rule 925 General Conformity, 2/24/95

--San Diego County APCD, Rule 1501 General Conformity, 5/24/95

--Butte County AQMD, Rule 1103 General Conformity, 5/25/95

--Ventura County APCD, Rule 220 General Conformity, 8/10/95

--Mojave Desert AQMD, Rule 2002-General Federal Actions Conformity, 5/

10/96

--Yolo-Solano AQMD, Rule 10.3 General Conformity, 12/3/98

II. EPA Evaluation and Final Action

EPA compared each of the submitted rules to the Federally

promulgated rule at 40 CFR part 51. EPA believes that all of the

submitted SIP revisions are consistent with 40 CFR 51.851(b) and are no

less stringent than the Federal rule. EPA is thus approving the above

rules into the SIP under 110(k) and 176(c) of the CAA. A more detailed

discussion of EPA's evaluation can be found in the Support

Documentation available at the EPA Region 9 Office.

EPA is publishing these rules without prior proposal because the

EPA 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 the SIP revisions should

adverse comments be filed. These rules will be effective June 22, 1999

without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by

May 24, 1999.

If the EPA receives any adverse comments, then EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal of this direct final rule in the Federal Register

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 rule. Any parties interested in commenting on this rule

should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public

is advised that this rule will be effective on June 22, 1999 and no

further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

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.

III. 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 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 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

[[Page 19918]]

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 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

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 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.

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 June 22, 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, Carbon Monoxide,

General conformity, Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate

matter, Volatile organic compound.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the State of California and the State of Arizona was

approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: January 29, 1999.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting 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 et seq.

Subpart D--Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(92) to read as

follows:

Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(92) Plan revisions were submitted on March 3, 1995, by the

Governor's designee.

(A) Arizona State Administrative Code Title 18, Chapter 2, Article

14, adopted on December 23, 1994.

* * * * *

[[Page 19919]]

Subpart F--California

3. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs (c)(205)

introductory text, (c)(205)(i) introductory text, (c)(205)(i)(B)(2),

(c)(207)(i)(B)(5), (c)(207)(i)(E)(2), (c)(207)(i)(F), (c)(207)(i)(G),

(c)(207)(i)(H), (c)(207)(i)(I), (c)(210)(i)(F), (c)(210)(i)(G),

(c)(210)(i)(H), (c)(215)(i)(E), (c)(220)(i)(D), (c)(221)(i)(B),

(c)(224)(i)(B)(2), (c)(231)(i)(C) and (c)(259) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(205) New and amended plans for the following APCDs were submitted

on December 28, 1994, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

* * * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Federal General Conformity Regulation, adopted on September 7,

1994.

* * * * *

(207) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(5) Rule 502, adopted on November 8, 1994.

* * * * *

(E) * * *

(2) Appendix G General Conformity, adopted on October 19, 1994.

(F) Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Regulation XIII, adopted on October 5, 1994.

(G) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 9110, adopted on October 20, 1994.

(H) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 702, adopted on October 20, 1994.

(I) South Coast Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 1901, adopted on September 9, 1994.

* * * * *

(210) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) Feather River Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 10.4, adopted on November 7, 1994.

(G) Placer County Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 508, adopted on November 3, 1994.

(H) Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 104, adopted on November 3, 1994.

* * * * *

(215) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 925, adopted on November 29, 1994.

* * * * *

(220) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 1501, adopted on March 7, 1995.

* * * * *

(221) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) Butte County Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 1103, adopted on February 16, 1995.

* * * * *

(224) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Rule 220, adopted on May 9, 1995.

* * * * *

(231) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 2002, adopted on October 26, 1994.

* * * * *

(259) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were

submitted on December 3, 1998, by the Governor's designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District.

(1) Rule 10.3, adopted on February 8, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-9996 Filed 4-22-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P