Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is approving revisions to the Florida State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted on September 7, 1999, by the State of Florida through the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). The purpose of the revisions to rule 62-212.400 is to correct discrepancies between State and Federal rule language on exemptions from Prevention of Significant Deterioration and to include additional provisions.
This direct final rule is effective March 28, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by February 26, 2003. If adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will not take effect.
All comments should be addressed to Heidi LeSane at the EPA, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
Copies of the state submittal are available at the following addresses for inspection during normal business hours:
Environmental Protection Agency, Atlanta Federal Center, Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.Start Printed Page 3818
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Twin Towers Office Building, 2600 Blair Stone Road, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2400.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Heidi LeSane at (404) 562-9035 (E-mail: email@example.com).End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
The State of Florida through the FDEP submitted revisions to Rule 62-212.400 of the Florida SIP on September 7, 1999. The purpose of the revisions to rule 62-212.400 is to correct discrepancies between State and Federal rule language on exemptions from Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and to include additional provisions. A detailed analysis of the revisions is presented below.
II. Analysis of Florida's Submittal
Paragraph 62-212.400(2)(a)2.a, 62-212.400(2)(a)4, and 62-212.400(2)(a)5 are being revised to include a cross-reference to Rule 62-204.800.
Paragraph 62-212.400(2)(a)2.b is being added to exempt from PSD review any collateral emissions increases resulting from pollution control projects at pulp and paper mills being undertaken to comply with the EPA “cluster” rule.
Paragraph 62-212.400(2)(a)2.c is being added to exempt from PSD review any collateral emissions increases resulting from pollution control projects at municipal solid waste landfills being undertaken to comply with EPA landfill gas collection rules.
Paragraph 62-212.400(2)(a)3 (the temporary clean coal technology demonstration project exemption from PSD review) is being added in accordance with 40 CFR part 52, thus correcting a discrepancy between State and Federal rules.
Paragraph 62-212.400(2)(a)4 is being revised to correct a discrepancy between State and Federal rules (changing “unit-by-unit” to “pollutant-by-pollutant”).
EPA is approving the aforementioned revisions to the Florida SIP because they are consistent with the Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA requirements. The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial submittal 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 28, 2003 without further notice unless the Agency receives adverse comments by February 26, 2003.
If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a document withdrawing the final rule and 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. Parties interested in commenting should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, the public is advised that this rule will be effective on March 28, 2003 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
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 28, 2003. 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).)Start List of Subjects Start Printed Page 3819
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Intergovernmental relations
- Particulate matter
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Volatile organic compounds
Dated: January 8, 2003.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40,End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 52—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority for citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart K—FloridaStart Amendment Part
2. Section 52.520(c) is amended by revising the entry for “62-212.400” to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
|State citation||Title/subject||State effective date||EPA approval date||Explanation|
|* * * * * * *|
|62-212 Stationary Sources Preconstruction Review|
|* * * * * * *|
|62-212.400||Prevention of Significant Deterioration||08/15/1999||01/27/2003 [Insert page citation of publication]|
|* * * * * * *|
[FR Doc. 03-1632 Filed 1-24-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P