[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 63 (Friday, March 31, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 17229-17231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-7993]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-207-0228; FRL-6570-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision; Antelope Valley Air Pollution 
Control District and South Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a disapproval of revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution 
Control District (AVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality Management 
District (SCAQMD). These revisions would allow the district the 
discretion to suspend district rules, regulations or orders in the 
event of a state or federally declared state of emergency. EPA has 
evaluated these revisions and is proposing to disapprove them because 
they would weaken the SIP.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by May 1, 
2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed 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 rules are available for public inspection at EPA's 
Region IX office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted 
rules 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, 315 W. Pondera 
Street, Lancaster, California 93534
    South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley 
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone (415) 744-1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being proposed for disapproval are Antelope Valley Air 
Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 118, Emergencies. Rule 118 was 
submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board on March 10, 
1998 and May 18, 1998, respectively.

II. Background

    This document addresses EPA's proposed action for Antelope Valley 
Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) and South Coast Air Quality 
Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 118, Emergencies. These rules were 
adopted by AVAPCD on August 19, 1997 and by SCAQMD on December 7, 1995. 
These rules were found to be complete on May 21, 1998 for AVAPCD and on 
July 17, 1998 for SCAQMD, pursuant to EPA's completeness criteria that 
are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed Action

    In determining the approvability of a rule, EPA must evaluate the 
rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA 
regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 CFR 
part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). EPA's interpretation of these requirements, 
which forms the basis for this action, appears in EPA policy guidance 
documents. In general, the guidance documents have been set forth to 
ensure that submitted rules meet Federal requirements, are fully 
enforceable, and strengthen or maintain the SIP.
    There is currently no version of Antelope Valley or South Coast 
Rule 118, Emergencies, in the SIP. The submitted rules include the 
following:
     Definitions of various terms used in the rule;
     Executive Officer authority to suspend AQMD rules; 
regulations, or orders in the event of a state or federally-declared 
State of Emergency; and
     Guidelines for suspending or modifying compliance with 
existing rules, regulations, or permit conditions, and provisions 
allowing extension of suspension beyond the state of emergency.
    Rules submitted to EPA for approval as revisions to the SIP must be 
fully enforceable, must maintain or strengthen the SIP, and must 
conform with EPA policy in order to be approved by EPA. AVAPCD and 
SCAQMD Rules 118 weaken, rather than strengthen or

[[Page 17230]]

maintain the SIP. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA does not have the 
authority to approve SIP provisions which would allow Executive 
Officers' discretion to suspend federally enforceable requirements. 
AVAPCD and SCAQMD Rule 118, if approved, would impact EPA's ability to 
seek injunctive relief and penalties in appropriate instances and would 
allow the districts to waive federally enforceable requirements 
contrary to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. These deficiencies 
undermine the prerogatives retained by EPA for protecting the NAAQS, 
PSD increments, and other air quality related values under section 110 
and part D. Therefore, in order to maintain the SIP, EPA is proposing a 
disapproval of these rules. Because these rules are not required under 
section 110 or part D, their disapproval will not trigger sanctions or 
FIP requirements pursuant to section 179.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any State implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the State Implementation Plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and 
Review.

B. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875, Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership. Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the 
Agency consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule 
implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 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 
Executive Order 13045 because it is does not involve decisions intended 
to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 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, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to 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 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 
Executive Order 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

[[Page 17231]]

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, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

    Dated: March 17, 2000.
Laura Yoshii,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 00-7993 Filed 3-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P