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

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