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 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