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

I. Applicability

The rules being rescinded from the AVAPCD portion of the California SIP include: AVAPCD Regulation XII, Rules of Practice and Procedures, consisting of: Rule 1201, Discretion to Hold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, 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

On January 4, 1999 in 64 FR 67, EPA proposed to rescind the rules listed above from the AVAPCD portion of the California SIP. EPA has evaluated all of the above rule recissions for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA regulations and EPA interpretation of these requirements as expressed in the various EPA policy guidance documents referenced in the Proposed rule cited above. EPA has found that the rule recissions meet the applicable EPA requirements. A detailed discussion of the rule provisions and evaluations has been provided in 64 FR 67 and in the technical support document (TSD) available at EPA's Region IX office dated September 22, 1998.

III. Response to Public Comments:

A 30-day public comment period was provided in 64 FR 67. EPA received no public comments.

IV. EPA Action

EPA is taking final action to approve the recission of the rules listed above from the AVAPCD portion of the California SIP. EPA is approving the submittal under section 110(k)(3) as meeting the requirements of section 110(a) and Part D of the CAA. This approval action will rescind these rules from the federally approved SIP. 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).

V. 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 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 General Accounting Office

The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. Sec. 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. Sec. 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 10, 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.

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: February 22, 1999. Felicia Marcus, 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 paragraphs (c)(47)(i)(C), (c)(65)(iii), and (c)(137)(vii)(D), and by revising paragraph (c)(65) introductory text, to read as follows:

Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * * (c) * * * (47) * * * (i) * * * (C) Previously approved on May 9, 1980 and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control

District Rules 1201-1205, 1209-1211, 1214, 1217, 1220-1221, and 1223- 1224. * * * * * (65) The following amendments to the South Coast Air Basin Control Plan were submitted on July 25, 1979, by the Governor's designee. * * * * * (iii) Previously approved on September 28, 1981 and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District Rules 1206, 1208, 1212, 1213, 1215, 1216, 1218, 1219, 1222, and 1225-1230. * * * * * (137) * * * (vii) * * * (D) Previously approved on February 1, 1984 and now deleted without replacement for implementation in the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District Rule 1207. * * * * * [FR Doc. 99-5828 Filed 3-9-99; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P