[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3214-3216]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1261]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
