[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