Air quality implementation plans; approval and promulgation; various States: California,

[Federal Register: March 21, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 55)]

[Rules and Regulations]

[Page 13843-13845]

From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

[DOCID:fr21mr03-10]

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 071-0379a; FRL-7456-6]

Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, Mendocino County Air Quality Management 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 Mendocino County Air Quality Management District (MCAQMD), and to rescind one rule from the Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), we are approving and rescinding local rules that are administrative and address changes for clarity and consistency.

DATES: This rule is effective on May 20, 2003, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 21, 2003. If we receive such comment, we 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 94105-3901.

You can inspect copies of the submitted SIP 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 SIP revisions at the following locations:

Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Room B-102, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., (Mail Code 6102T), 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 92243-2801. Mendocino County Air Quality Management District, 306 E. Gobbi St., Ukiah, CA 95482-5511. Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud Ct., Monterey, CA 93940-6536.

A copy of the rules may also be available via the Internet at http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is

http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/drdbltxt.htm. Please be advised that this is

not an EPA Web site and may not contain the same version of the rule that was submitted to EPA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cynthia G. Allen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-4120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and ``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

1. The State's Submittal

   1. What rules did the State submit?

   2. Are there other versions of these rules?

   3. What is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions? II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

   1. How is EPA evaluating the rules?

   2. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?

   3. Public comment and final action. III. Background information

   1. Why were these rules submitted? IV. Administrative Requirements

1. The State's Submittal

   1. What Rules Did the State Submit?

      Table 1 lists the rules we are approving with the dates that they were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

      Table 1.--Submitted Rules

      Local agency

      Rule No.

      Rule title

      Adopted Submitted

      ICAPCD

      115 Legal Application and Incorporation of

      36416

      36671 Other Regulations. MCAQMD

      400(b) Circumvention..........................

      34064

      34290 MBUAPCD

      209 State Ambient Air Quality Standards

      36753

      36870 (Rescission).

      On December 27, 1993 (MCAQMD), October 6, 2000 (ICAPCD), and February 8, 2001 (MBUAPCD), these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

   2. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

      We approved versions of these rules into the SIP on the dates listed: ICAPCD rule 115, February 3, 1989; MCAQMD rule 400(b), November 7, 1978; and MBUAPCD rule 209, July 13, 1987.

   3. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

      Imperial rule 115 has been reformatted for consistency with the district's rule book and represents an improvement to the SIP.

      Mendocino rule 400(b) has been revised to clarify that no one may emit air contaminants except in such fashion that compliance can be determined.

      Monterey rule 209 is being rescinded because requirements have previously been incorporated into district rule 207. The TSDs have more information about these rules.

2. EPA's Evaluation and Action

   1. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

      These rules describe administrative provisions and definitions that support emission controls found in other local agency requirements. In combination

      [[Page 13844]]

      with the other requirements, these rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the Act) and must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). EPA policy that we used to help evaluate enforceability requirements consistently includes the Bluebook (``Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations,'' EPA, May 25, 1988) and the Little Bluebook (``Guidance Document for Correcting Common VOC & Other Rule Deficiencies,'' EPA Region 9, August 21, 2001).

   2. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

      We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability and SIP relaxations. The TSDs have more information on our evaluation.

   3. Public Comment and Final Action

      As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully approving the submitted rules and rule recission because we believe they fulfill all relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this approval, so we are finalizing it 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 and recission. If we receive adverse comments by April 21, 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 May 20, 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 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.

3. Background Information

   1. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

   Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that control volatile organic compounds, oxides of nitrogen, particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health and the environment. These rules were developed as part of the local agency's program to control these pollutants. Table 2 lists some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these rules.

   Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones

   Date

   Event

   March 3, 1978.......................... EPA promulgated a list of ozone nonattainment areas under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 81.305. May 26, 1988........................... EPA notified Governors that parts of their SIPs were inadequate to attain and maintain the ozone standard and requested that they correct the deficiencies (EPA's SIP--Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of the pre- amended Act. 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.

4. 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 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. 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. 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 May 20, 2003.

   [[Page 13845]]

   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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

   Dated: January 17, 2003. Alexis Strauss, 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 paragraphs (c)(159)(iii)(E), (194)(i)(G)(2), and (279)(i)(A)(10) to read as follows:

      Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.

      * * * * *

      (c) * * *

      (159) * * *

      (iii) * * *

      (E) Previously approved on July 13, 1987 in (c)(159)(iii)(A) of this section and now deleted without replacement, Rule 209. * * * * *

      (194) * * *

      (i) * * *

      (G) * * *

      (2) Rule 400(b) adopted on April 6, 1993. * * * * *

      (279) * * *

      (i) * * *

      (A) * * *

      (10) Rule 115 adopted on November 19, 1985 and amended on September 14, 1999. * * * * *

      [FR Doc. 03-6710 Filed 3-20-03; 8:45 am]

      BILLING CODE 6560-50-P