Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Direct final rule.
EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) and San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The KCAPCD revisions concern the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from agricultural burning and prescribed burning. The SJVUAPCD revision concerns the emission of nitrogen oxides (NOX) from lime kilns. We are approving 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 November 3, 2003 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by October 6, 2003. If we receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take effect.
Mail or e-mail comments to Andy Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; email@example.com.
You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule revisions and TSDs at the following locations:
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 1001 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 “M” Street, Suite 302, Bakersfield, CA 93301.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.
A copy of the rule may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is not an EPA website and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.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 rule or rule revisions?
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. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
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 adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
|Local agency||Rule No.||Rule title||Adopted or amended||Submitted|
|KCAPCD||417||Agricultural and Prescribed Burning||03/13/03 Amended||06/05/03|
|SJVUAPCD||4313||Lime Kilns||03/27/03 Adopted||06/05/03|
On July 1, 2003, 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 approved KCAPCD Rule 417 into the SIP on August 19, 1999 (64 FR 45170), originally adopted on April 18, 1972. SJVUAPCD Rule 4313 is a new rule.
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule or Rule Revisions?
NOX helps produce ground-level ozone, smog and particulate matter, which harm human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control NOX and particulate matter emissions.
The purpose of the revisions to KCAPCD Rule 417 is to make the following changes:
- Added are 19 new definitions.
- Added is the concept of a marginal-burn day, where limited burning would be allowed when conditions are close to those of a permissive-burn day.
- Added is 48-hour forecast, in addition to the present 72-hour outlook.
- Added are the Smoke Management Guidelines promulgated under title 17, California Code of Regulations (CCR) (September 18, 2001). These guidelines require that smoke management plans be prepared for prescribed burning of greater than 10 acres, with additional plan requirements at the 100-acre and 250-acre thresholds.
- Meteorological criteria for permissive-burn days in the Mohave Desert Air Basin are incorporated by reference from title 17, CCR, section 80311 (September 18, 2001).
- Deleted is the exemption to do Range Improvement Burning on a no-burn day if over 50% is brush-treated.
The purpose of new SJVUAPCD Rule 4313 is to regulate NOX emissions from lime kilns.
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 nonattainment areas with significant PM-10 sources to adopt reasonably available control measures (RACM), including reasonably available Start Printed Page 52511control technology (RACT). KCAPCD is a PM-10 maintenance attainment area that was previously PM-10 moderate nonattainment. The PM-10 Attainment Demonstration Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request, KCAPCD (September 5, 2003) does not rely on Rule 417 for attainment, therefore fulfilling RACM/RACT is not required.
Major NOX sources in severe ozone nonattainment areas are required to adopt Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) (see sections 182(a)(2)(A) and 182(f)). SJVUAPCD is a severe ozone nonattainment area and must fulfill the requirements of RACT.
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).
- Prescribed Burning Background Document and Technical Information Document for Best Available Control Measures (EPA-450/2-92-003).
- General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 57 FR 13498, 13540 (April 16, 1992).
- PM-10 Attainment Demonstration Maintenance Plan and Redesignation Request, KCAPCD (September 5, 2003).
- Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations, U.S. EPA (May 25, 1988) (the Bluebook).
- State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen Oxides Supplement to the General Preamble for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (the “NOX Supplement to the General Preamble”), U.S. EPA, 57 FR 55620 (November 25, 1992).
- Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies, U.S. EPA Region IX (August 21, 2001) (the Little Bluebook).
B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?
We believe the rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, SIP relaxations, and fulfilling RACM/RACT or 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 October 6, 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 receive timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective without further notice on November 3, 2003. This will incorporate these rules into the federally-enforceable SIP.
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. 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 (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 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 November 3, 2003. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality Start Printed Page 52512of 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
- Nitrogen oxides
- Particulate matter
- Reporting and recordkeeping requirements
- Volatile organic compounds
Dated: August 7, 2003.
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)(316) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
(316) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were submitted on June 5, 2003, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 417, originally adopted on April 18, 1972, amended on March 13, 2003.
(B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 4313, adopted on March 27, 2003.
[FR Doc. 03-22445 Filed 9-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P