[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3214-3216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1261]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 211-0117a FRL-6213-5]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the 
California State Implementation Plan. The revisions concern the 
recission of rules for a market incentive program for the Antelope 
Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD). 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). EPA is finalizing the approval of these recissions from the 
California SIP under provisions of the CAA regarding EPA action on SIP 
submittals, SIPs for national primary and secondary ambient air quality 
standards and plan requirements for nonattainment areas.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 22, 1999 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 22, 1999. If EPA 
receives such comment, it will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel, Chief, 
Rulemaking Office, AIR-4, at the Region IX office listed below. Copies 
of the rule revisions and EPA's evaluation report 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, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460
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 IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1184.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being approved for recission from the Antelope Valley Air 
Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) portion of the California SIP 
include: AVAPCD Regulation XX, Regional Clean Air Incentives Market--
RECLAIM: Rule 2000, General; Rule 2001, Applicability; Rule 2002, 
Allocations for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) and Oxides of 
Sulfur (SOX); Rule 2004, Requirements; Rule 2005, New Source 
Review for RECLAIM; Rule 2006, Permits; Rule 2007, Trading 
Requirements; Rule 2008, Mobile Source Credits; Rule 2010, 
Administrative Remedies and Sanctions; Rule 2011, Requirements for 
Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur 
(SOX) Emissions; Rule 2011, Appendix A--Requirements for 
Monitoring, Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Sulfur 
(SOX) Emissions; Rule 2012, Requirements for Monitoring, 
Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 
Emissions; Rule 2012, Appendix A--Requirements for Monitoring, 
Reporting, and Recordkeeping for Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX) 
Emissions; and Rule 2015, Backstop Provisions. These rules are 
currently a part of the federally enforceable SIP. The rule recissions 
were submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA on June 28, 
1998.

II. Background

    The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 approved for recission for AVAPCD were adopted by 
the SCAQMD for the purpose of establishing a market incentive program 
designed to allow facilities flexibility in achieving emission 
reduction requirements under SCAQMD's Air

[[Page 3215]]

Quality Management Plan. RECLAIM was not applicable to the Antelope 
Valley portion of the SCAQMD because RECLAIM only applies in the South 
Coast Air Basin and Antelope Valley is part of the Mojave Desert Air 
Basin.
    EPA has determined that the recission of Regulation XX as it 
applies to the AVAPCD is approvable because it is not currently being 
implemented at any large source in the Antelope Valley area, and major 
sources in the District have expressed a lack of desire to participate 
in RECLAIM. Further, all sources within the Antelope Valley area are 
required to comply with existing NOX and SOX 
regulations in the AVAPCD Rulebook. Since EPA has determined that 
Regulation XX is an inapplicable and unnecessary regulation for AVAPCD, 
EPA is approving the recission.
    The State of California submitted many revised rules for 
incorporation into its SIP on June 23, 1998, including the rule 
recissions being acted on in this document. This document addresses 
EPA's direct final action for approving the recission of AVAPCD's 
Regulation XX, which includes Rules 2000 to 2002, 2004 to 2008, 2010, 
2011, 2011-Appendix A, 2012, 2012-Appendix A, and 2015. The revision 
was adopted on January 20, 1998 by the Governing Board of the AVAPCD. 
These revisions were found to be complete on August 25, 1998 pursuant 
to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix V 2 and are being approved 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 XX, Rules 2000 to 2002, 
2004 to 2008, 2010, 2011, 2011-Appendix A, 2012, 2012-Appendix A, and 
2015 is being approved under section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting 
the requirements of section 110(a) and part D.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective March 22, 1999 
without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by 
February 22, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed rule. The 
EPA will not institute a second comment period on this rule. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this rule should do so at this 
time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this 
rule will be effective on March 22, 1999 and no further action will be 
taken on the proposed rule.

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 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

[[Page 3216]]

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.

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 22, 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, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    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)(232)(i)(A)(2) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (232) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Previously approved on November 8, 1996 now deleted without 
replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution 
Control District, Regulation XX.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-1261 Filed 1-20-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P