Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California State Implementation Plan Revision, Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the California SIP are: SBCAPCD Rule 102, Definitions, and SCAQMD Rule 102, Definition of Terms, submitted on May 13, 1999 by the California Air Resources Board.

II. Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the provisions of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 Act or pre-amended Act), that included Santa Barbara County and the South Coast Air Basin, see 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On May 26, 1988, EPA notified the Governor of California, pursuant to section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that the Santa Barbara County APCD and South Coast AQMD portions of the California SIP were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that deficiencies in the existing SIP be corrected (EPA's SIP-Call). In response to the SIP call and other requirements, the SBCAPCD and SCAQMD submitted many rules which EPA approved into the SIP. This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for SBCAPCD Rule 102, Definitions, and SCAQMD Rule 102, Definition of Terms. These rules were adopted by SBCAPCD and SCAQMD on January 21, 1999 and June 12, 1998, respectively. These rules were found to be complete on June 10, 1999, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V 1 and is being finalized for approval into the SIP. These rules were originally adopted as part of SBCAPCD and SCAQMD's efforts to achieve the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and in response to EPA's SIP-Call and the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ 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). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The following is EPA's evaluation and final action for these rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a 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). The EPA interpretation of these requirements appears in various EPA policy guidance documents.2 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Among other things, the pre-amendment guidance consists of those portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987); ``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviation, Clarification to appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register document'' (Blue Book) (notice of availability was published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988); and the existing control technique guidelines (CTGs). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

EPA previously reviewed many rules from the SBCAPCD and SCAQMD agencies and incorporated them into the federally approved SIP pursuant to section 110(k)(3) of the CAA. The following revisions were made in SBCAPCD and SCAQMD definitions rule:

Santa Barbara County APCD

On March 26, 1999, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 102, Definitions that had been adopted by SBCAPCD on March 10, 1998. SBCAPCD submitted Rule 102, Definitions includes the following changes from the current SIP: Rule 102 has been revised by reinserting text inadvertently omitted during the April 1997 comprehensive revisions to the District's permitting regulations.

South Coast AQMD

On March 26, 1999, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 102, Definition of Terms that had been adopted by SCAQMD on June 13, 1997. SCAQMD submitted Rule 102, Definitions of Terms includes the following changes from the current SIP: The March 13, 1998 amendments add difluoromethane (HFC-32), 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane (C4F9OCH3), 2-(difluoromethoxymethyl)- 1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane [(CF3)2CFCF2OCH3], 1- ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-nonafluorobutane (C4F9OC2H5), and 2- (ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-heptafluoropropane [(CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5 ]

to the definition of Rule 102, Definition of Terms. The June 12, 1998 amendments add parachlorobenzotrifluoride (PCBTF), ethylfluoride (HFC-161), 1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC- 236fa), 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ca), 1,1,2,3,3- pentafluoropropane (HFC-245ea), 1,1,1,2,3-pentaflurorpropane (HFC- 245eb), 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC-245fa), 1,1,1,2,3,3- hexafluoropropane (HFC-236ea), 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC- 365mfc), chlorofluoromethane (HCFC-31), 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2- trifluoroethane (HCFC-123a), and 1 chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC-151a) to the definition of Rule 102, Definition of Terms. Rule 102 has been revised to update the definition of ``Exempt Organic Compounds'' to be consistent with the most recent federal and state definitions changes. See 62 FR 44900. EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore, SBCAPCD Rule 102, Definitions and SCAQMD Rule 102, Definition of Terms, are being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D. Future action by EPA on prohibitory, new source review, or other SBCAPCD rules may require changes to these definitions. EPA is publishing this rule 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 the SIP revision should relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective December 6, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives relevant adverse comments by November 8, 1999. If the EPA received such comments, then EPA will publish a notice withdrawing the 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 rule. Any parties interested in commenting on the 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 December 6, 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 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 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 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 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 December 6, 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.

Dated: September 10, 1999. David P. Howekamp, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

Part 52, Chapter I, Title of 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)(263)(i)(A)(2) and (B) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * * (c) * * * (263) * * * (i) * * * (A) * * * (2) Rule 102 adopted on February 4, 1977 and amended on June 12, 1998. (B) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District. (1) Rule 102 adopted on January 21, 1999. * * * * * [FR Doc. 99-26068 Filed 10-6-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P