Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
EPA is taking final action to approve a state implementation plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of California to provide for attainment of the 1-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) in Santa Barbara County. EPA is approving the SIP revision under provisions of the Clean Air Act (CAA) regarding EPA action on SIP submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards, and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.
This action is effective on September 13, 2000.
The rulemaking docket for this action is available for public inspection during normal business hours at EPA's Region IX office. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying parts of the docket.
Copies of the SIP materials are also available for inspection at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, 2020 L Street, Sacramento, California
Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District, 26 Castilian Drive B-23, Goleta, CA 93117
Santa Barbara's 1998 Clean Air Plan is available electronically at: http://www.sbcapcd.org/capes.htmStart Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dave Jesson (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1288, or firstname.lastname@example.org.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
We are finalizing approval of Santa Barbara's 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP). The Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District (SBCAPCD) adopted the plan to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements for ozone areas classified as serious. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) submitted the plan to us on March 19, 1999. EPA determined the submittal to be complete on April 28, 1999, pursuant to 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.
On March 30, 2000, we proposed approval of the ozone plan with respect to its emissions inventories, control measures, 1999 rate-of-progress (ROP) plan, attainment demonstration, and transportation budgets. Please see that document (65 FR 16864-16869) for further details on our proposed action, applicable CAA requirements, and additional information on the affected area.
II. Public Comments
We received no public comments.
III. EPA Final Action
In this document, we are finalizing the following actions on the 1998 CAP. For each action, we indicate the page on which the element is discussed in our proposal.
(1) Approval of the revised baseline and projected emissions inventories under CAA sections 172(c)(3) and 182(a)(1)—16865;
(2) Approval of the SBCAPCD's measures 333, 352, 353, T13, T18, T21, and T22, including the District's commitment to adopt and implement the measures by specified dates (if applicable, in the case of the contingency measures) to achieve the identified emission reduction, under CAA section 110(k)(3)—16866 (Table 1);
(3) Approval of the rate-of-progress (ROP) plan for the milestone year 1999, under CAA sections 182(c)(2)—16866 (Table 2);
(4) Approval of the attainment demonstration under CAA sections 182(c)(2)—16867;
(5) Approval of the revised motor vehicle emissions budgets for purposes of transportation conformity under CAA section 176(c)(2)(A)—16867.
In addition, EPA finds that the SBCAPCD has established and implemented a Photochemical Assessment Monitoring Station (PAMS) network meeting the requirements of CAA section 182(c)(1)—16868.
Upon the effective date of our approval of the 1998 CAP, this plan replaces and supersedes the 1994 ozone SIP with the exception of the approved State control measures, the local control measures that are not amended by the 1998 CAP, and the local transportation control measures (TCMs) for which the 1998 CAP augments the TCMs and projects included in the 1994 SIP.  Our final approval also makes enforceable the SBCAPCD commitments to adopt and implement the control measures and contingency measures (if applicable) listed in Table 1 (16866), to achieve the specified emissions reductions.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review.”
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 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.
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 affects 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. If the mandate is Start Printed Page 49500unfunded, EPA must 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 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.
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 (64 F.R. 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves 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. 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. 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).
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.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use of VCS.
I. 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 October 13, 2000. 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 Start Printed Page 49501extend 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).)Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental regulations
- Nitrogen oxides
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Volatile organic compounds
Dated: June 23, 2000.
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 52—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart F—CaliforniaStart Amendment Part
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(275) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
(275) New and amended plan for the following agency was submitted on March 19, 1999, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Control measures 333, 352, 353, T13, T18, T21, and T22; 1999 rate-of-progress plan; and motor vehicle emissions budgets (cited on page 5-4), as contained in the Santa Barbara 1998 Clean Air Plan.
(ii Additional materials.
(A) Santa Barbara County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Baseline and projected emissions inventories, and ozone attainment demonstration, as contained in the Santa Barbara 1998 Clean Air Plan.
[FR Doc. 00-20535 Filed 8-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P