[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 133 (Wednesday, July 11, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 36170-36173]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17201]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 071-0283; FRL-6997-6]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial 
County Air Pollution Control District, Monterey Bay Unified Air 
Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution 
Control District, and South Coast Air Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing a limited approval and limited disapproval 
of revisions to the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District 
(ICAPCD) portion and Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (MBUAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan 
(SIP). This action was proposed in the Federal Register on December 15, 
2000 and concerns PM-10 emissions from livestock feed lots and from 
agricultural burning. Under authority of the Clean Air Act as amended 
in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action simultaneously approves local 
rules that regulate these emission sources and directs California to 
correct rule deficiencies.
    EPA is also finalizing full approval of revisions to the ICAPCD 
portion of the California SIP concerning definitions, PM-10 emissions 
from orchard heaters, incinerators, open burning, and range improvement 
burning; to the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) 
portion concerning PM-10 emissions from restaurant operations; and to 
the MBUAPCD portion concerning exceptions to other rules.
    EPA is deferring to a separate action revisions to the San Joaquin 
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the 
California SIP concerning PM-10 emissions from industrial processes and 
from residential wood combustion.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective on August 10, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You can inspect copies of the administrative record for this 
action at EPA's Region IX office during normal business hours. You can 
inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions at the following 
locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San 
Francisco, CA 94105.
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.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 150 South Ninth 
Street, El Centro, CA 92243.
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District, 24580 Silver 
Cloud Court, Monterey, CA 93940.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East 
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 East Copley 
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX; (415) 744-1135.

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

I. Proposed Action

    On December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78434), EPA proposed a limited approval 
and limited disapproval of the rules in Table 1 that were submitted by 
CARB for incorporation into the California SIP.

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title              Adopted     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD..................................          420  Livestock Feed Yards...........      9/14/99      5/26/00
ICAPCD..................................          701  Agricultural Burning...........      9/14/99      5/26/00
MBUAPCD.................................          403  Particulate Matter.............      3/22/00      5/26/00
SJVUAPCD................................         4201  Particulate Matter                  12/17/92     11/18/93
                                                        Concentration.
SJVUAPCD................................         4901  Residential Wood Burning.......      7/15/93     12/10/93
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We proposed a limited approval because we determined that these 
rules improve the SIP and are largely consistent with the relevant CAA 
requirements. We simultaneously proposed a limited disapproval because 
some rule provisions conflict with section 110 and part D of the CAA 
and have limited enforceability.
    On December 15, 2000 (65 FR 78434), we also proposed a full 
approval of the adoption or recision of the rules in Table 2 that were 
submitted by CARB for incorporation into or removal from the California 
SIP.

                                            Table 2.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Adopted or
              Local agency                  Rule No.              Rule title             rescinded    Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD..................................          101  Definitions....................      9/14/99      5/26/00
ICAPCD..................................          408  Frost Protection...............      9/14/99      5/26/00

[[Page 36171]]

 
ICAPCD..................................          409  Incinerators...................      9/14/99      5/26/00
ICAPCD..................................          421  Open Burning...................      9/14/99      5/26/00
ICAPCD..................................          702  Range Improvement Burning......      9/14/99      5/26/00
MBUAPCD.................................          405  Exceptions.....................      3/22/00      5/26/00
                                                                                        (Rescinded)
MBUAPCD.................................          406  Additional Exception...........      3/22/00      5/26/00
                                                                                        (Rescinded)
SCAQMD..................................         1138  Control of Emissions from           11/14/97      3/10/98
                                                        Restaurant Operations.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Our proposed action contains more information on the rules and our 
evaluation.

II. Public Comments and EPA Responses

    EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period. 
During this period, we received comments on SJVUAPCD Rules 4201 and 
4901. We will address these comments in a separate action.

III. EPA Action

    We are not taking action on SJVUAPCD Rules 4201 and 4901 at this 
time. No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the 
other rules as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as 
authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the CAA, EPA is 
finalizing a limited approval of submitted rule MBUAPCD Rule 403. This 
action incorporates the submitted rule into the California SIP, 
including those provisions identified as deficient. As authorized under 
section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing a limited 
disapproval of the rule. No sanctions will be imposed for MBUAPCD Rule 
403, because the area is PM-10 attainment and the rule is not required 
to maintain attainment.
    EPA is also finalizing a limited approval of submitted rules ICAPCD 
Rules 420 and 701. This action incorporates the submitted rules into 
the California SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. 
As authorized under section 110(k)(3), EPA is simultaneously finalizing 
a limited disapproval of the rules. As a result, sanctions will be 
imposed for ICAPCD Rules 420 and 701 unless EPA approves subsequent SIP 
revisions that correct the rule deficiencies within 18 months of the 
effective date of this action. These sanctions will be imposed under 
section 179 of the Act as described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994). In 
addition, EPA must promulgate a federal implementation plan (FIP) under 
section 110(c) unless we approve subsequent SIP revisions that correct 
the rule deficiencies within 24 months. Note that the submitted rules 
have been adopted by the local agencies, and EPA's final limited 
disapproval does not prevent the local agency from enforcing them.
    EPA is finalizing full approval of submitted rules ICAPCD Rule 101, 
ICAPCD Rule 408, ICAPCD Rule 409, ICAPCD Rule 421, ICAPCD Rule 702, and 
SCAQMD Rule 1138 for incorporation into the California SIP. EPA is 
finalizing full approval of the recision of submitted rules MBUAPCD 
Rule 405 and MBUAPCD Rule 406 from the California SIP.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planning and Review.''

B. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it does not involve 
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 
1999) revokes and replaces Executive Orders 12612, Federalism and 
12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership. E.O. 13132 requires 
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have 
federalism implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include 
regulations that 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.'' Under E.O. 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that 
has federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the Agency 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will 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 E.O. 13132, because it merely 
acts on a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not 
alter the relationship or the distribution of power and 
responsibilities established in the CAA. Thus, the requirements of 
section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13175

    Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination 
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), 
requires EPA

[[Page 36172]]

to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely 
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have tribal implications.'' ``Policies that have tribal 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that have ``substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal government and the Indian tribes, 
or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the 
Federal government and Indian tribes.''
    This final rule does not have tribal implications. It will not have 
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, 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 in Executive Order 13175. 
Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions.
    This final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create 
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
    EPA's disapproval of the state request under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act does not affect any existing 
requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal 
requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal 
disapproval of the state submittal does not affect state 
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.
    Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under 
the CAA, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The CAA 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union 
Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in the 
aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action acts on pre-
existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

G. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's action because it 
does not require the public to perform activities conducive to the use 
of VCS.

H. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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 rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 September 10, 2001. 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.

    Dated: May 18, 2001.
Jane Diamond,
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)(C), 
(c)(254)(i)(D)(5), (c)(279)(i)(A)(2), and (c)(279)(i)(B)(2) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (159) * * *
    (iii) * * *
    (C) Previously approved on July 13, 1987 in (c)(159)(iii)(A) of 
this section

[[Page 36173]]

and now deleted without replacement Rules 405 and 406.
* * * * *
    (254) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (D) * * *
    (5) Rule 1138, adopted on November 14, 1997.
* * * * *
    (279) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) * * *
    (2) Rules 101, 408, 409, 420, 421, 701, and 702, adopted on 
September 14, 1999.
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 403, adopted on March 22, 2000.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 01-17201 Filed 7-10-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P