[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2575-2577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-891]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 095-0107; FRL-6213-9]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California
State Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura County Air Pollution
Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval
of a revision to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP)
proposed in the Federal Register on August 3, 1998. This final action
will incorporate this rule into the federally approved SIP. The
intended effect of finalizing this action is to regulate emissions of
sulfur dioxide (SO2) in accordance with the requirements of
the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). The revised
rule controls SO2 emissions by establishing a limit on the
sulfur content of fuels. Thus, EPA is finalizing a simultaneous limited
approval and limited disapproval under CAA provisions regarding EPA
action on SIP submittals and general rulemaking authority because these
revisions, while strengthening the SIP, also do not fully meet the CAA
provisions regarding plan submissions. There will be no sanctions clock
as the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District is in attainment
for SO2.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on February 16, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report for
the rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office
during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions
are 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 95814
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,
Ventura, CA 93003
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stanley Tong, Rulemaking Office, (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1191.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Applicability
The rule being approved into the California SIP is: Ventura County
Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD), Rule 64, Sulfur Content of
Fuels. This rule was submitted by the California Air Resources Board
(CARB) to EPA on July 13, 1994.
II. Background
On August 3, 1998 in 63 FR 41220, EPA proposed granting limited
approval and limited disapproval of the following rule into the
California SIP: VCAPCD, Rule 64, Sulfur Content of Fuels. Rule 64 was
adopted by VCAPCD on June 14, 1994. This rule was submitted by the CARB
to EPA on July 13, 1994. A detailed discussion of the background for
the above rule is provided in the proposed rule (PR) cited above.
EPA has evaluated the above rule for consistency with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA's
[[Page 2576]]
interpretation of these requirements as expressed in the various EPA
policy guidance documents referenced in the PR. EPA is finalizing the
limited approval of this rule in order to strengthen the SIP and
finalizing the limited disapproval requiring the correction of the
remaining deficiency involving recordkeeping and record retention. A
detailed discussion of the rule provisions and evaluation has been
provided in the PR and in the technical support document (TSD)
available at EPA's Region IX office (TSD dated 7/1/98 for VCAPCD Rule
64).
III. Response to Public Comments
A 30-day public comment period was provided in 63 FR 41220 dated
August 3, 1998. EPA received no comment letters on the NPR.
IV. EPA Action
EPA is finalizing a limited approval and a limited disapproval of
the above-referenced rule. The limited approval of this rule is being
finalized under section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority pursuant
to section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further air quality
by strengthening the SIP. The approval is limited in the sense that the
rule strengthens the SIP. However, the rule does not meet the section
182(a)(2)(A) CAA requirement because of the rule deficiency which was
discussed in the PR. Thus, in order to strengthen the SIP, EPA is
granting limited approval of this rule under sections 110(k)(3) and
301(a) of the CAA. This action approves the rule into the SIP as
federally enforceable rule.
At the same time, EPA is finalizing the limited disapproval of this
rule because it contains a deficiency. As stated in the proposed rule,
there is no sanctions clock as VCAPCD is in attainment for
SO2. It should be noted that the rule covered by this FR has
been adopted by the VCAPCD and is currently in effect in the VCAPCD.
EPA's limited disapproval action will not prevent VCAPCD or EPA from
enforcing this rule.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, 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. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must 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 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.''
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, 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 unfunded,
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. This action does not involve
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. 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
[[Page 2577]]
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 March 16, 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, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, 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: December 10, 1998.
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 paragraph (c) (198)(i)(J)(3)
to read as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(198) * * *
(i) * * *
(J) * * *
(3) Rule 64, amended June 14, 1994.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-891 Filed 1-14-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
