[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 78 (Monday, April 25, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 21151-21153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-8188]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R09-OAR-2005-CA-01; FRL-7900-3]


Revision to the California State Implementation Plan, Monterey 
Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District and San Joaquin Valley 
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 
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District (MBUAPCD) and San 
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) 
portions of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The 
revisions concern the emission of particulate matter (PM-10) from open 
outdoor burning and from incinerator burning. We are approving 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 June 24, 2005 without further notice, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by May 25, 2005. 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.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number R09-OAR-2005-
CA-01, by one of the following methods:
    1. Agency Web site: http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/. EPA prefers 
receiving comments through this electronic public docket and comment 
system. Follow the on-line instructions to submit comments.
    2. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the on-line instructions.
    3. E-mail: [email protected].
    4. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel (Air-4), U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 
94105.
    Instructions: All comments will be included in the public docket 
without change and may be made available online at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub/, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information (CBI) or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 
Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be 
clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through the 
agency Web site, eRulemaking portal, or e-mail. The agency Web site and 
eRulemaking portal are ``anonymous access'' systems, and EPA will not 
know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the 
body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    Docket: The index to the docket for this action is available 
electronically at http://docket.epa.gov/rmepub and in hard copy at EPA 
Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all 
documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may 
be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 
material), and some may not be publicly available in either location 
(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an 
appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 947-4118, 
[email protected].

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 Are the Purposes of the Submitted Rule Revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule and Rule Revisions?
    B. Do the Rule Revisions 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 and dates that MBUAPCD and SJVUAPCD revised 
the local rules and when they were submitted to EPA by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB).

[[Page 21152]]



                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Local agency                Rule No.          Rule title           Revised or Amended     Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MBUAPCD.............................          408  Incinerator Burning....  09/15/04 Revised.......     01/13/05
MBUAPCD.............................          438  Open Outdoor Fires.....  09/15/04 Revised.......     01/13/05
SJVUAPCD............................         4103  Open Burning...........  09/16/04 Amended.......     01/13/05
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 16, 2005, the submittal of January 13, 2005 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 a version of MBUAPCD Rule 408 into the SIP on January 
31, 2003 (68 FR 4929) and Rule 438 on January 12, 2004 (69 FR 1682). We 
approved a version of SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 into the SIP on February 27, 
2002 (67 FR 8894).

C. What Are the Purposes of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

    PM-10 harms human health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the 
CAA requires states to submit regulations that control PM-10 emissions.
    The purposes of the submitted rule or rule revisions are described 
below:
     MBUAPCD Rule 408 deletes the exemption of paragraph 1.3.1 
allowing incinerator burning of yard trimmings and brush in an area not 
served weekly by a solid waste disposal service.
     MBUAPCD Rule 438 deletes the exemption of paragraph 
1.3.1.4 for burning household rubbish at one- and two-family homes in 
an area not served weekly by a solid waste disposal service; deletes 
the exemption of paragraph 1.3.1.5 for burning household rubbish at 
one- and two-family homes in San Benito County; and deletes the 
exemption of paragraph 1.3.1.6.1 for burning cardboard and non-glossy 
paper in a non-incorporated area.
     SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 changes paragraph 4.2.2 into paragraph 
5.9, Diseased Materials, which adds the restrictions that the applicant 
obtain a conditional, non-transferable permit describing the material 
to be burned; that the applicant not have a burning violation in the 
last three years; and that the county agricultural commissioner 
determine there is no feasible alternative to burning to prevent 
disease or pests to cause a quantifiable reduction on the yield of 
crops, animals, or fowl.
    The TSD has more information about these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule and Rule Revisions?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
CAA), must require Best Available Control Measures (BACM) including, 
Best Available Control Technology (BACT), for significant source 
categories or major sources in serious PM-10 nonattainment areas (see 
section 189(b)), must require Reasonably Available Control Measures 
(RACM) including, Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT), for 
significant source categories or major sources in moderate PM-10 
nonattainment areas (see section 189(a)), and must not relax existing 
requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). MBUAPCD is a PM-10 
maintenance attainment area and need not fulfill the requirements of 
BACM/BACT or RACM/RACT. SJVUAPCD is a serious PM-10 nonattainment area 
and must fulfil the requirements of BACM/BACT. See 40 CFR part 81.
    The following guidance documents were used for reference:
     Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans, U.S. EPA, 40 CFR part 51.
     PM-10 Guideline Document, EPA-452/R-93-008.

B. Do the Rule Revisions Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe that MBUAPCD Rules 408 and 438 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 
are consistent with the relevant policy and guidance regarding 
enforceability, SIP relaxations, and the requirements of BACM/BACT. The 
TSD has 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 SIP revisions 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 SIP revision. 
If we receive adverse comments by May 25, 2005, 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 June 24, 2005. This will 
incorporate MBUAPCD Rules 408 and 438 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4103 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 (Pub. L. 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,

[[Page 21153]]

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. 
section 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 June 24, 2005. 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: March 29, 2005.
Wayne Nastri,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart F--California

0
2. Section 52.220 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(335) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (335) New and amended regulations for the following APCDs were 
submitted on January 13, 2005, by the Governor's designee.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 408, adopted on September 1, 1974 and revised on September 
15, 2004.
    (2) Rule 438, adopted on April 16, 2003 and revised on September 
15, 2004.
    (B) San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 4103, adopted on June 18, 1992 and amended on September 
16, 2004.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-8188 Filed 4-22-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P