[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 3 (Wednesday, January 6, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 754-756]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-13]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 211-0117; FRL-6211-9]
California State Implementation Plan Revision; Interim Final
Determination That State Has Corrected Deficiencies
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Interim final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Elsewhere in today's Federal Register, EPA has published a
notice of proposed rulemaking fully approving revisions to the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions concern a
rule from the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD):
Rule 1150.1, Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid Waste
Landfills. Based on the proposed full approval, EPA is making an
interim final determination by this action that the State has corrected
the deficiencies for which sanctions clocks began on July 7, 1997. This
action will defer the imposition of offsets and highway funding
sanctions under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
Although the interim final action is effective upon publication, EPA is
taking public comment on this action. If no comments are received on
EPA's proposed approval of the State's submittal, EPA will finalize its
determination that the State has corrected the deficiencies that
started the sanctions clocks by publishing a final rulemaking in the
Federal Register. If comments are received on EPA's proposed approval
and this interim final action, EPA will publish a final action taking
into consideration any comments received.
DATE: This determination is effective on January 6, 1999. Comments must
be received by February 5, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
The state submittal and EPA's analysis for that submittal, which
are the basis for this action, are available for public review at the
above address and at the following locations:
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4182
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia A. Bowlin, Rulemaking Office
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, (415) 744-1188.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On October 16, 1985 and February 10, 1986, the State submitted Rule
1150.1, Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills, and Rule
1150.2, Control of Gaseous Emissions from Inactive Landfills,
respectively. EPA published a limited approval/limited disapproval for
these rules in the Federal Register on May 6, 1997. 62 FR 24574. EPA's
disapproval action started an 18-month clock for the imposition of one
sanction (followed by a second sanction 6 months later) under section
179 of the Clean Air Act (Act) and a 24-month clock for promulgation of
a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) under section 110(c) of the Act.
The State subsequently submitted a revised rule 1 on June
23, 1998. The revised rule was adopted by SCAQMD on April 10, 1998. In
the Proposed Rules section of today's Federal Register, EPA has
proposed full approval of the State of California's submittal of
SCAQMD's Rule 1150.1, Control of Gaseous Emissions from Municipal Solid
Waste Landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Submitted SCAQMD Rule 1150.1, Control of Gaseous Emissions
from Municipal Waste Landfills, is intended to replace both Rule
1150.1, Control of Gaseous Emissions from Active Landfills, and Rule
1150.2, Control of Gaseous Emissions from Inactive Landfills.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the proposed approval set forth in today's Federal
Register, EPA believes that it is more likely than not that the State
has corrected the original disapproval deficiencies. Therefore, EPA is
taking this interim final rulemaking action, effective on publication,
finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies. However, EPA is
also providing the public with an opportunity to comment on this final
action. If, based on any comments on this action and any comments on
EPA's proposed full approval of the State's submittal, EPA determines
that the State's submittal is not fully approvable and this final
action was inappropriate, EPA will either propose or take final action
finding that the State has not corrected the original disapproval
deficiencies. As appropriate, EPA will also issue an interim final
determination or a final determination that the deficiencies have not
been corrected. Until EPA takes such action, the application of
sanctions will continue to be deferred.
This action does not stop the sanctions clocks that started for
this area on July 7, 1997. However, this action will defer the
imposition of the offsets sanction and will defer the imposition of the
highway sanction. See 59 FR 39832 (Aug. 4, 1994). If EPA publishes a
final rulemaking fully approving the State's submittal, such action
will permanently stop the sanctions clock and will permanently lift any
imposed, stayed, or deferred sanctions. If EPA must withdraw the
proposed full approval based on adverse comments and EPA subsequently
determines that the State did not in fact correct the disapproval
deficiencies, the sanctions consequences described in the sanctions
rule will apply. See 59 FR 39832, codified at 40 CFR 52.31.
II. EPA Action
EPA is taking interim final action finding that the State has
corrected the disapproval deficiencies that started the sanctions
clocks. Based on this action, imposition of the offsets and highway
funding sanctions will be deferred until EPA's final action fully
approving the State's submittal becomes effective or until EPA proposes
or takes final action disapproving in whole or in part the State
submittal. If EPA's proposed rulemaking action fully approving the
State submittal becomes final, all sanctions clocks will be permanently
stopped and any imposed, stayed, or deferred sanctions will be
permanently lifted.
Because EPA has preliminarily determined that the State has
corrected the deficiencies identified in EPA's limited disapproval
action, relief from sanctions should be provided as quickly as
possible. Therefore, EPA is invoking the good cause exception under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) in not providing an opportunity for
comment before this action takes effect.2 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3). EPA believes that
[[Page 755]]
notice-and-comment rulemaking before the effective date of this action
is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. EPA has reviewed
the State's submittal and, through its proposed action, is indicating
that it is more likely than not that the State has corrected the
deficiencies that started the sanctions clocks. Therefore, it is not in
the public interest to initially impose sanctions or to keep applied
sanctions in place when the State has most likely done all it can to
correct the deficiencies that triggered the sanctions clocks. Moreover,
it would be impracticable to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking
on a finding that the State has corrected the deficiencies prior to the
rulemaking approving the State's submittal. Therefore, EPA believes
that it is necessary to use the interim final rulemaking process to
temporarily stay or defer sanctions while EPA completes its rulemaking
process on the approvability of the State's submittal. Moreover, with
respect to the effective date of this action, EPA is invoking the good
cause exception to the 30-day notice requirement of the APA because the
purpose of this notice is to relieve a restriction. See 5 U.S.C.
553(d)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ As previously noted, however, by this action EPA is
providing the public with a chance to comment on EPA's determination
after the effective date, and EPA will consider any comments
received in determining whether to reverse such action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 E.O. 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, E.O. 12875 requires
EPA to provide to the OMB 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, 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 is
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 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, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to
provide to the OMB, 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, E.O. 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 action temporarily relieves sources of an
additional burden potentially placed on them by the sanctions
provisions of the Act. Therefore, I certify that it does not have an
impact on any small entities.
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
[[Page 756]]
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 8, 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,
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: December 18, 1998.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-13 Filed 1-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-W
