![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: October 29, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 209)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65873-65876]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29oc02-3]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 242-0367; FRL-7396-3]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District, Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District, and Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control
District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District
(ICAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD)
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). This action
was proposed in the Federal Register on April 25, 2002 and concerns
volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from gasoline dispensing
facilities. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990
(CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves local rules that
regulate this emission source and directs California to correct rule
deficiencies.
EPA is also finalizing the full approval of a revision to the Santa
Barbara County Air Pollution Control District portion of the California
SIP regarding organic liquid cargo vessels.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on November 29, 2002.
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 rule revisions at the following
locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center (6102T), U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 150 South 9th
Street, El Centro, CA 92243.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square
Drive, Ventura, CA 93003.
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian
Drive, Suite B-23, Goleta, CA 93117.
A copy of the rules may also be available via the Internet at
http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. 
Please be advised that this is
not an EPA website and may not contain the same version of the rules
that were submitted to EPA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), 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 April 25, 2002 (67 FR 20478), we proposed a limited approval and
limited disapproval of the following rules that were submitted for
incorporation into the California SIP by the California Air Resources
Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule #
Local Agency Rule title Revised Submitted
ICAPCD.................... 415 Transfer and Storage of 09/14/99 05/26/00
Gasoline.
VCAPCD.................... 70 Storage and Transfer of 11/14/00 05/08/01
Gasoline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 CAA.
Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our
evaluation.
On April 25, 2002 (67 FR 20478), we also proposed a full approval
of the following rule that was submitted for incorporation into the
California SIP.
[[Page 65874]]
Table 2.--Submitted Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule #
Local Agency Rule Title Revised Submitted
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SBCAPCD................ 346 Loading of Organic Liquid Cargo 01/18/01 05/08/01
Vessels.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we received comments from the following party.
1. Richard H. Baldwin, Ventura County Air Pollution Control
District, letter dated May 28, 2002 and received May 28, 2002. The
comments and our responses are summarized below.
Comment 1: EPA's proposed rulemaking states that Rule 70 is
deficient because, ``Reverification of the performance tests of the
vapor recovery system * * * should be performed more frequently * * *
in order to fulfill RACT.'' For a variety of reasons, the commenter
believes that this deficiency is more stringent than that required by
RACT.
Response 1: RACT generally refers largely to direct emission
control requirements such as emission limits. Monitoring, reporting,
recordkeeping, and similar requirements designed to ensure compliance
with control requirements are sometimes also referred to as components
of RACT, but often considered simply enforceability elements necessary
to fulfill the general CAA 110(a)(2) enforceability requirement. We
agree with the commenter that the control requirements in Rule 70 meet
or exceed RACT. However, we should have identified the rule deficiency
more clearly as an enforceability issue because, as described in our
proposal action and associated TSD, we believe the existing performance
test requirements do not adequately ensure continued compliance with
the control requirements.
Comment 2: South Coast AQMD is the only California District that
currently contains reverification of performance test requirements
sufficient to address EPA's proposed limited disapproval. EPA should
not define RACT based on the single most stringent adopted rule.
Response 2: EPA is not using the more stringent South Coast
requirements as the primary basis for disapproving Rule 70. Rather, as
discussed in our proposed action, we are relying on the research,
performed by the California Air Pollution Control Officer's Association
(CAPCOA), CARB, and others, which shows that existing Rule 70
reverification of performance test requirements do not adequately
ensure compliance with the rule's control requirements. See also
Response 1.
Comment 3: EPA should approve the submitted version of Rule 70 as
meeting RACT requirements.
Response 3: We concur that Rule 70 meets or exceeds the RACT
control requirements. We do not believe, however, that the
reverification of performance test requirements adequately fulfill
section 110(a)(2) enforceability requirements. See also Response 1.
Comment 4: EPA Region IX's guidelines for evaluating vapor recovery
rules are inappropriately more stringent in California than in other
states.
Response 4: The guidelines distinguish requirements in California
from requirements in other states because of the unique role that CARB
plays in regulating vapor recovery. We believe, however, that the
substance of our guidelines is the same for California and other
states.
Comment 5: The rule improvement identified by EPA is not relied
upon in Ventura's approved attainment demonstration.
Response 5: Improved reverification of performance test
requirements are not intended to directly yield emission reductions
that would be incorporated in an attainment demonstration. They are
intended to assure that control requirements contained in Rule 70,
which are relied on in Ventura's attainment demonstration, are in fact
achieved.
Comment 6: RACT should be determined on a national, not a regional
basis.
Response 6: Reasonably available controls can vary somewhat based
on local economic and other factors. See also Response 1.
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 VCAPCD Rule 70. This action incorporates the submitted rule
into the California SIP, including those provisions identified as
deficient. As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously
finalizing a limited disapproval of VCAPCD Rule 70. As a result,
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 Act as described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994). 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.
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is
finalizing a limited approval of ICAPCD Rule 415. This action
incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, including
those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under section
110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited disapproval of
ICAPCD Rule 415. No sanctions are associated with this action because
this is not a required submittal.
Note that the submitted rules have been adopted by the VCAPCD and
ICAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval does not prevent the local
agencies from enforcing them.
As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing a
full approval of SBCAPCD Rule 346. This action incorporates the
submitted rule into the California SIP.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this regulatory
action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and
Review.''
B. Executive Order 13211
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.
C. Executive Order 13045
Executive Order 13045, entitled 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
[[Page 65875]]
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.
D. Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, entitled 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 acts on 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.
E. Executive Order 13175
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (59 FR 22951, November 6, 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.'' ``Policies that have tribal
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes,
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
This final rule does not have tribal implications. 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
F. 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 act on 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.
EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, 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).
G. 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
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 costs of $100
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action acts on 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.
H. 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.
EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it
[[Page 65876]]
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use
of VCS.
I. 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. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
J. 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 30, 2002. 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, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: October 1, 2002.
Laura Yoshii,
Deputy 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)(279)(i)(A)(9), (284)(i)(C)(2), and (284)(i)(D)(2) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(279) * * *
(i) * * *
(A) * * *
(9) Rule 415, adopted on September 14, 1999.
* * * * *
(284) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(2) Rule 346, adopted on January 18, 2001.
(D) Ventura County Air Pollution Control District.
(2) Rule 70, adopted on November 14, 2000.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 02-27343 Filed 10-28-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P