California State Implementation Plan Revision; Interim Final Determination That State Has Corrected Deficiencies

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