[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 1 (Monday, January 4, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 67-69]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-34820]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 210-0115; FRL-6214-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing approval of revisions to the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) which concern the recission of administrative 
rules for the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD). 
These rules concern conduct and procedure governing hearings by the 
governing board on permit appeals. The intended effect of this action 
is to bring the AVAPCD SIP up to date in accordance with the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: Written comments must be received by February 3, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be addressed to: Andrew Steckel, Chief, 
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 revisions and EPA's evaluation report are 
available for public inspection at EPA's Region 9 office during normal 
business hours. Copies of the submitted rule revisions are also 
available for inspection at the following locations:

California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812.
Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, 43301 Division Street, 
Suite 206, Lancaster, CA 93539-4409.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie A. Rose, Rulemaking Office, AIR-
4, Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 9, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415) 744-
1184.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being proposed for recission from the Antelope Valley Air 
Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) portion of the California SIP 
include: AVAPCD Regulation XII, Rules of Practice and Procedures, 
consisting of: Rule 1201, Discretion to Hold Hearing; Rule 1202,

[[Page 68]]

Notice; Rule 1203, Petitions; Rule 1204, Answers to Petitions; Rule 
1205, Function of the Board; Rule 1206, Appearances; Rule 1207, Service 
and Filing; Rule 1208, Rejection of Documents; Rule 1209, Form and 
Size; Rule 1210, Copies; Rule 1211, Subpoenas; Rule 1212, Continuances; 
Rule 1213, Request for Continuances or Time Extensions; Rule 1214, 
Transcript and Record; Rule 1215, Conduct of Hearing; Rule 1216, 
Presiding Officer; Rule 1217, Disqualification of Hearing Officer or 
Board Member; Rule 1218, Ex Parte Communications; Rule 1219, Evidence; 
Rule 1220, Prepared Testimony; Rule 1221, Official Notice; Rule 1222, 
Order of Proceedings; Rule 1223, Prehearing Conference; Rule 1224, 
Opening Statements; Rule 1225, Conduct of Cross-Examination; Rule 1226, 
Oral Argument; Rule 1227, Briefs; Rule 1228, Motions; Rule 1229, 
Decisions; and Rule 1230, Proposed Decision and Exceptions. These rule 
recissions were adopted by the AVAPCD on October 21, 1997 and submitted 
by the California Air Resources Board to EPA on May 18, 1998.

II. Background

    The Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) was 
created pursuant to California Health and Safety Code (CHSC) section 
40106 and assumed all air pollution control responsibilities of the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) in the Antelope 
Valley region of Los Angeles County,1 effective July 1, 
1997. AVAPCD is the successor agency to SCAQMD in the Antelope Valley 
portion of the Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality Maintenance Area. 
The SCAQMD rules and regulations remain in effect after July 1, 1997, 
until the AVAPCD rescinds them or adopts new rules and regulations to 
supersede them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Antelope Valley region of Los Angeles County is 
contained within the Federal area known as the Southeast Desert 
Modified Air Quality Management Area and the region identified by 
the State of California as the Mojave Desert Air Basin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The rules being proposed for recission for AVAPCD were adopted by 
the SCAQMD for the purpose of establishing conduct and procedure 
governing hearings by its Governing Board on permit appeals. The rules 
were necessary to implement section 40509 of the CHSC which states, 
``Any person may petition the South Coast district board to hold a 
public hearing on any application to issue or renew a permit.'' No 
other air district Governing Board has specific authority to hear 
appeals on permits. For all other districts, the authority for such 
appeals is vested with the hearing board of the district.
    The newly formed AVAPCD is a ``county district'' pursuant to CHSC 
section 40106(d) and may not exercise powers granted exclusively to the 
SCAQMD Governing Board by CHSC section 40509. Regulation XII applies 
only to the SCAQMD Governing Board and not to any other air district 
board. Therefore, AVAPCD has rescinded Regulation XII, Rules of 
Practice and Procedure from the AVAPCD rulebook and the AVAPCD SIP.
    Regulation XII (Rules 1201 to 1231) was approved into the SCAQMD 
SIP on September 9, 1980 (45 FR 30626) and September 28, 1981 (46 FR 
47451). It became part of the AVACPD SIP when the AVAPCD was formed on 
July 1, 1997.
    The State of California submitted many revised rules for 
incorporation into its SIP on May 18, 1998, including the rule 
recissions being acted on in this document. This document addresses 
EPA's proposed action for approving the recission of AVAPCD's 
Regulation XII, which includes Rules 1201 to 1230. The revision was 
adopted on October 21, 1997 by the Governing Board of the AVAPCD. These 
revisions were found to be complete on July 17, 1998 pursuant to EPA's 
completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V 
2 and are being proposed for recission from the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, 
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

    EPA has evaluated the submitted rule recissions and has determined 
that they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. 
Therefore, the recission of AVAPCD Regulation XII, Rules 1201 to 1230 
is being proposed for approval under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as 
meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and part D.

IV. 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

[[Page 69]]

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 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations.

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

    Dated: December 17, 1998.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 98-34820 Filed 12-31-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P