[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 148 (Monday, August 3, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 41220-41221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-20609]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 095-0083; FRL-6133-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, Ventura County Air Pollution 
Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
revisions to the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which 
concern the control of the sulfur content of fuels within the Ventura 
County Air Pollution Control District.
    The intended effect of proposing limited approval and limited 
disapproval of this rule 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). EPA's final action on this 
proposed rule will incorporate it into the federally approved SIP. EPA 
has evaluated the rule and is proposing a simultaneous limited approval 
and limited disapproval under provisions of the CAA 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.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office 
[AIR-4], Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901.
    Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report of the rule is 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX office during normal 
business hours. Copies of the submitted rule are also available for 
inspection at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket, 401 ``M'' Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.
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 94105-3901; Telephone: (415) 744-
1191.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rule being proposed for approval 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

    40 CFR 81.305 provides the attainment status designations for air 
districts in California. Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
is listed as being in attainment for the national ambient air quality 
standards for sulfur dioxide (SO2). Sulfur dioxide is formed 
by the combustion of fuels containing sulfur compounds.
    VCAPCD adopted Rule 64, Sulfur Content of Fuels, on June 14, 1994. 
On July 13, 1994 the State of California submitted many rules for 
incorporation into its SIP, including the rule being acted on in this 
document. VCAPCD Rule 64 was found to be complete on September 12, 1994 
pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR 
part 51, appendix V 1 and is being proposed for limited 
approval and limited disapproval. The following is EPA's evaluation and 
proposed action for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ EPA adopted completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 (55 
FR 5824) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised 
the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

    In determining the approvability of an SO2 rule, EPA 
must evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA 
and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and 40 CFR part 51 
(Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans).
    While the VCAPCD is in attainment with the SO2 NAAQS, 
many of the

[[Page 41221]]

general SIP requirements regarding enforceability, for example, are 
still appropriate for the rule. In determining the approvability of 
this rule, EPA evaluated it in light of the ``SO2 Guideline 
Document'', EPA-452/R-94-008.
    On April 17, 1987, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 64, 
Sulfur Content of Fuels, that had been adopted by the VCAPCD on July 5, 
1983. VCAPCD submitted an amendment to Rule 64 on July 13, 1994 which 
includes the following significant changes from the current SIP:
     Adds a section on applicability of the rule.
     Adds a section on test methods for determining the sulfur 
content of fuels.
     Removes incineration of waste gases whose gross heating 
value is less than 300 BTUs per cubic foot from the list of exemptions 
to Rule 64.
     Exempts flare gas combustion and places it under the 
requirements of Rule 54: Sulfur Compounds.
    EPA has evaluated VCAPCD's submitted Rule 64 for consistency with 
the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy and has found that the 
revisions result in a clearer, more enforceable rule. Although VCAPCD's 
Rule 64 will strengthen the SIP, this rule contains the following 
deficiency which should be corrected.
     The rule does not explicitly state those records which 
sources are required to keep on site and made available to inspectors 
to assess compliance. The rule also does not state the minimum length 
of time for retaining data on site.
    A detailed discussion of the rule deficiency can be found in the 
Technical Support Document for Rule 64 (7/1/98), which is available 
from the U.S. EPA, Region IX office. Because of this deficiency, the 
rule is not approvable and may lead to rule enforceability problems.
    Because of the above deficiency, EPA cannot grant full approval of 
this rule under section 110(k)(3). Also, because the submitted rule is 
not composed of separable parts which meet all the applicable 
requirements of the CAA, EPA cannot grant partial approval of the rule 
under section 110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited approval of 
the submitted rule 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 because 
EPA's action also contains a simultaneous limited disapproval. In order 
to strengthen the SIP, EPA is proposing a limited approval of VCAPCD 
Rule 64 under sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA. At the same 
time, EPA is also proposing a limited disapproval of this rule because 
it contains a deficiency. There will be no sanctions clock as VCAPCD is 
in attainment for SO2.
    It should be noted that the rule covered by this proposed 
rulemaking has been adopted by the VCAPCD and is currently in effect in 
the VCAPCD. EPA's final limited disapproval action will not prevent the 
VCAPCD or EPA from enforcing this rule.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13045

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The proposed rule is not subject to E.O. 13045, entitled 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks,'' because it is not an ``economically significant'' action under 
E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D 
of the CAA do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
Federal SIP approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify 
that it does not have a significant impact on any small entities 
affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship 
under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its action 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).

C. 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 proposed 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 approves pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, 
or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: July 22, 1998.
Sally Seymour,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 98-20609 Filed 7-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P