[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