[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11773-11775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-5828]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 210-0133; FRL-6306-8]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval of revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in the Federal Register on 
January 4, 1999, 64 FR 67. The revisions concern the recission of 
administrative rules from 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 approval 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 AVAPCD portion of 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.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective on April 9, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule recissions and EPA's evaluation report 
for each rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX 
office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule 
recissions 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 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 rescinded from the 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, 
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

    On January 4, 1999 in 64 FR 67, EPA proposed to rescind the rules 
listed above from the AVAPCD portion of the California SIP.
    EPA has evaluated all of the above rule recissions for consistency 
with the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA 
interpretation of these requirements as expressed in the various EPA 
policy guidance documents referenced in the Proposed rule cited above. 
EPA has found that the rule recissions meet the applicable EPA 
requirements. A detailed discussion of the rule provisions and 
evaluations has been provided in 64 FR 67 and in the technical support 
document (TSD) available at EPA's Region IX office dated September 22, 
1998.

III. Response to Public Comments:

    A 30-day public comment period was provided in 64 FR 67. EPA 
received no public comments.

IV. EPA Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the recission of the rules 
listed above from the AVAPCD portion of the California SIP. EPA is 
approving the submittal under section 110(k)(3) as meeting the 
requirements of section 110(a) and Part D of the CAA. This approval 
action will rescind these rules from the federally approved SIP. 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).

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),

[[Page 11774]]

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 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 General Accounting Office

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 May 10, 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations.

    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: February 22, 1999.
Felicia Marcus,
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 paragraphs (c)(47)(i)(C), 
(c)(65)(iii), and (c)(137)(vii)(D), and by revising paragraph (c)(65) 
introductory text, to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (47) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on May 9, 1980 and now deleted without 
replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution 
Control

[[Page 11775]]

District Rules 1201-1205, 1209-1211, 1214, 1217, 1220-1221, and 1223-
1224.
* * * * *
    (65) The following amendments to the South Coast Air Basin Control 
Plan were submitted on July 25, 1979, by the Governor's designee.
* * * * *
    (iii) Previously approved on September 28, 1981 and now deleted 
without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air 
Pollution Control District Rules 1206, 1208, 1212, 1213, 1215, 1216, 
1218, 1219, 1222, and 1225-1230.
* * * * *
    (137) * * *
    (vii) * * *
    (D) Previously approved on February 1, 1984 and now deleted without 
replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution 
Control District Rule 1207.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 99-5828 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P