[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 35 (Tuesday, February 22, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8676-8679]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-4048]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA095-0216; FRL-6539-4]


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 of revisions to the 
California State Implementation Plan (SIP) which concerns the control 
of sulfur emissions within the Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District.
    The intended effect of proposing a limited approval 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 this rule and is 
proposing a limited approval under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA 
action on SIP submittals and

[[Page 8677]]

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 March 23, 2000.

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 are 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 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 APCD, 669 County Square Dr., 2nd Fl., Ventura, CA 93003-
5417

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 54, Sulfur 
Compounds. VCAPCD Rule 54 was submitted by 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 (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2). Therefore, for 
purposes of controlling SO2, this rule need only comply with 
the general provisions of section 110 of the Act.
    Sulfur dioxide is formed by the combustion of fuels containing 
sulfur compounds. High concentrations of SO2 affect 
breathing and may aggravate existing respiratory and cardiovascular 
disease. VCAPCD adopted Rule 54, Sulfur Compounds, on June 14, 1994 to 
control sulfur dioxide emissions. On July 13, 1994, the State of 
California submitted many rules for incorporation into its SIP, 
including VCAPCD Rule 54. This rule 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 and is being proposed for limited 
approval.
    The following is EPA's evaluation and proposed action for VCAPCD 
Rule 54.

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 general SIP requirements regarding enforceability, for 
example, are still appropriate for this 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 VCAPCD 
Rule 54, Sulfur Compounds, that had been adopted by VCAPCD on July 5, 
1983. VCAPCD submitted the current revision to Rule 54 which includes 
the following significant changes from the current SIP:
     Clarified that the SO2 limits also apply at sea 
level
     The rule now covers sulfur emissions from outer 
continental shelf sources
     Reduced the SO2 ground level limits from 0.5 
ppm down to 0.25 ppm to match state standards.
     Added an exemption for planned and unplanned flaring 
events provided conditions described in the Rule are met.
     Added a section on test methods.
    Although VCAPCD's Rule 54 will strengthen the SIP, this rule 
contains the following deficiency which should be corrected.
     The rule specifies a 300 ppm SO2 limit at the 
point of discharge for any combustion operation. The rule should also 
indicate that the standard is on a dry basis and should specify the 
percent excess air. EPA also recommends the following improvement to 
the rule.
     The period of record retention specified should be 
consistent with the federal record retention requirement of 5 years.
    A detailed discussion of the rule deficiency and recommendation for 
rule improvement can be found in the Technical Support Document for 
VCAPCD Rule 54 (1/14/2000), which is available from the U.S. EPA, 
Region IX office.
    Because of the deficiency identified for the rule being acted on in 
this document, it is not fully approvable and may lead to rule 
enforceability problems. Because of the above deficiency, EPA cannot 
grant full approval of the 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 advance the Act's overarching air quality protection goals 
by strengthening the SIP. In order to strengthen the SIP by advancing 
the SO2 air quality protection goal of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of VCAPCD Rule 54 under sections 110(k)(3) 
and 301(a) of the Act. However, this limited approval would not approve 
those measures as satisfying any other specific requirement of the

[[Page 8678]]

Act, nor would it constitute full approval of the SIP submittal 
pursuant to section 110(k)(3). Rather, a limited approval of this rule 
by EPA would mean that the emission limitations and other control 
measure requirements become part of the California SIP and are 
federally enforceable by EPA. See e.g. sections 302(q) and 113 of the 
Act.
    It should be noted that the rule covered by this proposed 
rulemaking has been adopted and is currently in effect in the air 
pollution control district to which this action pertains. EPA's final 
limited approval action will not prevent VCAPCD or EPA from enforcing 
this rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 
13132 requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 3255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do 
not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it is does not 
involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety 
risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to 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 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 
Executive Order 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 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

[[Page 8679]]

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.

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.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: February 8, 2000.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-4048 Filed 2-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P