![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: January 31, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 21)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 4929-4932]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr31ja03-18]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA 273-0370a; FRL-7441-5]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial
County Air Pollution Control District and Monterey Bay Unified Air
Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: 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).
DATES: 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
[[Page 4930]]
will publish a timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the
public that this rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 947-4118.
SUPPLEMENTARY 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).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule # Rule title Revised Submitted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD........ 701 Agricultural burning....... 08/13/02 10/16/02
MBUAPCD....... 408 Incinerator burning........ 08/21/02 10/16/02
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 4931]]
receive 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.
Table 2.--PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
7401-7671q.
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).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
[[Page 4932]]
Dated: December 12, 2002.
Keith Takata,
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)(302) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(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