Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (ICAPCD) and the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The ICAPCD revision concerns the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from agricultural burning. The MBUAPCD revision concerns the emission of PM-10 from incinerator burning. We are approving the local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
This rule is effective on April 1, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by March 3, 2003. If we receive such comments, we Start Printed Page 4930will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take effect.
Mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105.
You can inspect a copy of the submitted rules and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see a copy of the submitted rules and TSDs at the following locations:
Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, (Mail Code 6102T), Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 150 South 9th Street, El Centro, CA 92243.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940.
A copy of a rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. This is not an EPA Web site and it may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA. Readers should verify that the adoption date of the rule listed is the same as the rule submitted to EPA for approval and be aware that the official submittal is only available at the agency addresses listed above.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.
Table of Contents
I. The State's Submittal
A. What rules did the State submit?
B. Are there other versions of these rules?
C. What is the purpose of the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
C. Public comment and final action
III. Background Information
A. Why were these rules submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements
I. The State's Submittal
A. What Rules Did the State Submit?
Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the date that they were revised by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
|Local agency||Rule #||Rule title||Revised||Submitted|
On December 3, 2002, this submittal was found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.
B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?
We gave a limited approval and limited disapproval to a version of ICAPCD Rule 701 on July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36170). We approved a version of MBUAPCD Rule 408 on July 13, 1987 (52 FR 26148).
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
The purpose of the submitted revised ICAPCD Rule 701 is to remedy the deficiency cited in the limited approval and limited disapproval action on July 11, 2001 (66 FR 36170).
The purposes of the submitted revised MBUAPCD Rule 408 are to reformat the rule and to remove the blanket exemption from the rule for burning household rubbish and yard trimmings at single- and two-family homes in all of San Benito County.
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?
Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the CAA) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). Section 189(a) of the CAA requires moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas with significant PM-10 sources to adopt reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available control technology (RACT). RACM/RACT is not required for attainment areas unless required by a maintenance attainment plan. ICAPCD regulates a moderate PM-10 nonattainment area. MBUAPCD is a PM-10 attainment area. See 40 CFR 81.305.
The following guidance documents were used for reference:
- Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
- General Preamble Appendix C3—Prescribed Burning Control Measures (57 FR 18072, April 28, 1992).
- PM-10 Guideline Document, EPA-452/R-93-008.
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
The deficiency in ICAPCD Rule 701 was that the APCO had open-ended discretion to allow burning on No-Burn Days in case of imminent and substantial economic loss. The deficiency was remedied in paragraph B.1 with the addition that the APCO must limit the amount of acreage per No-Burn Day and that the APCO may authorize such burning only when downwind populated areas are forecast by the ICAPCD to achieve the ambient air quality standards.
The cited changes improve MBUAPCD Rule 408 with increased stringency by eliminating a blanket exemption.
We believe the rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, and RACM/RACT requirements. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Final Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this, so we are finalizing the approval without proposing it in advance. However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we receive adverse comments by March 3, 2003, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not Start Printed Page 4931receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on April 1, 2003. This will incorporate these rules into the federally-enforceable SIP and will terminate all sanctions and Federal Implementation Plan implications associated with our June 11, 2001 action on a previous version of ICAPCD Rule 701.
Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this direct final rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment.
III. Background Information
A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?
PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of local agency PM-10 rules.
|March 3, 1978||EPA promulgated a list of total suspended particulate (TSP) nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305.|
|July 1, 1987||EPA replaced the TSP standards with new PM standards applying only up to 10 microns in diameter (PM-10). 52 FR 24672.|
|November 15, 1990||Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted, Pub. L. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671 q.|
|November 15, 1990||PM-10 areas meeting the qualifications of section 107(d)(4)(B) of the CAA were designated nonattainment by operation of law and classified as moderate pursuant to section 188(a). States are required by section 110(a) to submit rules regulating PM-10 emissions in order to achieve the attainment dates specified in section 188(c).|
IV. Administrative Requirements
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 (Public Law 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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 CAA. 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. section 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. section 804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by April 1, 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
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental relations
- Particulate matter
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
Dated: December 12, 2002.
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 52 [AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart F—CaliforniaStart Amendment Part
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(302) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
(302) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on October 16, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Imperial County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 701, revised on August 13, 2002.
(B) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 408, adopted on September 1, 1974 and revised on August 21, 2002.
[FR Doc. 03-2174 Filed 1-30-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P