Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona and California State Implementation Plan Revision; Maricopa County, Arizona, Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 211-0126 EC; FRL-6235-5]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Arizona and

California State Implementation Plan Revision; Maricopa County,

Arizona, Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, San Diego

County Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air

Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control

District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the

Arizona and California State Implementation Plans (SIP). The revisions

concern rules from the following districts: Maricopa County, Arizona;

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, California; San Diego

County Air Pollution Control District, California; San Joaquin Valley

Unified Air Pollution Control District, California, and Ventura County

Air Pollution Control District, California. These revisions concern the

adoption of emergency episode plans within federal guidelines. This

approval action will incorporate these rules into the Federally

approved SIP. The intended effect of approving these rules is to

regulate emergency preparedness in accordance with the requirements of

the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is finalizing the

approval of these revisions into the Arizona and California SIPs 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 May 17, 1999 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 19, 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 at the

Region IX office listed below. Copies of the rule revision and EPA's

evaluation report of each rule 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:

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.

Maricopa County Environmental Services Department, Air Quality

Division, 1001 North Central Avenue, Ste. 201, Phoenix, Arizona 85004-

1942;

Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District, 315 West Pondera

Street, Lancaster, California, 93534;

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive,

San Diego, California 92123-1096;

San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1999

Tuolumne Street, Suite 200, Fresno, California, 93721, and

Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive,

Ventura, California, 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew Steckel, Rulemaking Office

(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX,

75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901, Telephone: (415)

744-1185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rules being approved into the Arizona and California SIP

include: Maricopa County, Arizona, Regulation VI, Rule 600--Emergency

Episode; Antelope Valley APCD, Rule 701--Air Pollution Emergency

Contingency Action; San Diego County APCD, Rule 127--Episode Criteria

Levels, Rule 128--Episode Declaration, and Rule 130--Episode Actions;

San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD, Rule 6010--General Statement, Rule

6020--Applicable Areas, Rule 6030--Episode Criteria Levels, Rule 6040--

Episode Stages, Rule 6050--Division of Responsibility, Rule 6060--

Administration of Emergency Program, Rule 6070--Advisory of High Air

Pollution Potential, Rule 6080--Declaration of Episode, Rule 6081--

Episode Action--Health Advisory, Rule 6090--Episode Action Stage 1:

(Health Advisory-Alert), Rule 6100--Episode Action Stage 2: (Warning),

Rule 6110--Episode Action Stage 3: (Emergency), Rule 6120--Episode

Termination, Rule 6130--Stationary Source Curtailment Plans and Traffic

Abatement Plans, Rule 6140--Episode Abatement Plan, and Rule 6150--

Enforcement; and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, Rule

150--General, Rule 151--Episode Criteria, Rule 152--Episode

Notification Procedures, Rule 153--Health Advisory Episode Actions,

Rule 154--Stage 1 Episode Actions, Rule 155--Stage 2 Episode Actions,

Rule 156--Stage 3 Episode Actions, Rule 157--Air Pollution Disaster,

Rule 158--Source Abatement Plans, and Rule 159--Traffic Abatement

Procedures.

These rules were submitted by the Arizona DEP to EPA on January 4,

1990 and by the California Air Resources Board on March 10, 1998

(Antelope Valley); January 28, 1992 (San Diego), March 3, 1997 (San

Joaquin), and January 28, 1992 (Ventura).

II. Background

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (42 USC s. 7401 et seq.; CAA or the Act)

required states to develop plans to prevent and

[[Page 13352]]

control air quality from degrading to the level of significant harm. By

the end of 1971, a regulatory structure was in place that continues to

this day, see 40 CFR Part 51.150 et seq. (Subpart H) and Appendix L

(following 40 CFR Part 51.680). Except for changes in the significant

harm level of criteria pollutants and a few other minor changes, the

regulatory structure has remained consistent for many years.

Subpart H requires local agencies to determine if they exceed the

minimum threshold for criteria pollutants and then to prepare plans to

avoid significant harm levels of these pollutants. Agencies are

encouraged to develop a graduated response that depends on the level of

threat to human health and environmental degradation that the existing

and projected pollutant levels indicate.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of an emergency episode rule, EPA

must evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA

and EPA regulations, as found in section 110 of the CAA and 40 CFR part

51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for this action, appears in various EPA policy

guidance documents, most notably the Guide for Air Pollution Episode

Avoidance (EPA, 1971) and other derivative publications. In general,

these guidance documents, as well as other relevant and applicable

guidance documents, have been set forth to ensure that submitted

emergency episode rules meet Federal requirements and are fully

enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP.

Maricopa County, Arizona's earlier emergency episode rule was

approved into the SIP in 1982. The new rule recasts the information

about episode level criteria and adds a section on appropriate control

actions to be undertaken as air quality would deteriorate. The

administrative requirements section is substantially unchanged.

The Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District (AVAPCD) has

adopted an emergency episode regulation intended to comply with 40 CFR

51.150; this rule will replace South Coast AQMD Rule 701 which has been

in the Antelope Valley SIP.

The regulations for APCDs include the following general elements:

(1) The plan shall identify the appropriate criteria pollutants and

the levels of those pollutants that would trigger pollution control and

avoidance activities,

(2) The plan shall identify a level of significant harm that meets

or exceeds the federal standards as established at 40 CFR s. 51.51,

(3) The plan shall identify specific control and avoidance actions

that the district would take when harmful levels of criteria pollutants

are reached.

The Maricopa County Environmental Services Department (MCESD), the

San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD), the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD), and

the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VCAPCD) have adopted

revisions to their earlier emergency episode plans that have

incorporated revised federal standards and improved surveillance and

control activities. A more detailed discussion of emergency episode

requirements and provisions can be found in the Technical Support

Document (TSD) for this action, dated November 18, 1998.

EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined that they

are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA policy. Therefore,

Maricopa County Rule 600, Antelope Valley APCD Rule 701, San Diego

County APCD Rules 127, 128, and 130, San Joaquin Valley Unified APCD

Rules 6010, 6020, 6030, 6040, 6050, 6060, 6070, 6080, 6081, 6090, 6100,

6110, 6120, 6130, 6140, and 6150, and Ventura County APCD Rules 150,

151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, and 159 are being approved

under section 110 (k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of

section 110 (a)(2)(G) of the Act.

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 May 17, 1999

without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by

April 19, 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 May 17, 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 EPA complies by consulting, Executiver Order 12875

requires EPA to 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 disporportionate effect on children.

If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate

the environmental health and 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.

[[Page 13353]]

This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate environmental health and 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 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, 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 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 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 May 17, 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, Ozone, Particulates, Carbon

monoxide, Volatile organic compounds, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation

Plan for the States of Arizona and California was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: February 4, 1999.

Laura Yoshii,

Deputy 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 D--Arizona

2. Section 52.120 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (67) (i) (C)

to read as follows:

Sec. 52.120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(67) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) Amended Regulation VI, Rule 600, revised on July 13, 1988.

* * * * * *

Subpart F--California

3. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraphs

(c)(187)(i)(B)(3), (187)(i)(D), (199)(i)(D)(3), (244)(i)(E), and

(256)(i)(D) to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(187) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) New rules 150 to 159 amended on September 17, 1991.

* * * * *

(D) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.

[[Page 13354]]

(1) New rules 127, 128, and 130 amended on September 17, 1991.

* * * * *

(199) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) * * *

(3) Rules 6010, 6020, 6040, 6050, 6060, 6070, 6080, 6081, 6090,

6100, 6110, 6120, 6130, 6140, and 6150 were adopted on May 21, 1992;

amended on December 17, 1992.

* * * * *

(244) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 6030 adopted on May 21, 1992; amended on November 13,

1996.

* * * * *

(256) * * *

(i) * * *

(D) Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 701 was amended on January 20, 1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 99-6180 Filed 3-17-99; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P