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

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