Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 3192-3194 [E8-161]
Download as PDF
3192
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
§ 52.2020
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
Article XX or XXI
citation
*
*
*
*
2105.14
*
*
Subpart 1—VOC Sources
*
*
*
*
7/10/05
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–583 Filed 1–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R09–OAR–2007–1075; FRL–8506–2]
Revisions to the California State
Implementation Plan, Kern County Air
Pollution Control District
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final
action to approve revisions to the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District
(KCAPCD) portion of the California
State Implementation Plan (SIP). These
revisions concern particulate matter
(PM–10) emissions from ambient dust,
propellant testing, and rocket testing.
We are approving local rules under the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA
or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on March
17, 2008 without further notice, unless
EPA receives adverse comments by
February 19, 2008. If we receive such
comments, we will publish a timely
withdrawal in the Federal Register to
notify the public that this direct final
rule will not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments,
identified by docket number EPA–R09–
Additional
explanation/
§ 52.2063
citation
EPA approval date
*
*
*
Part E—Source Emission and Operating Standards
*
*
Gasoline Dispensing Facilities—Stage
II Control.
*
*
State effective date
Title/subject
*
*
(c) * * *
(2) * * *
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
1/17/08 [Insert page number where the
document begins].
*
*
OAR–2007–1075, by one of the
following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line
instructions.
• E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
• 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 www.regulations.gov,
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
www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous
access’’ system, 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
www.regulations.gov 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.
Al
Petersen, EPA Region IX, (415) 947–
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
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 new rule
and 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 dates that the rules
were adopted or amended by the local
air agency and submitted by the
California Air Resources Board (CARB).
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULES
Local agency
Rule #
KCAPCD .....................................
KCAPCD .....................................
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jan 16, 2008
404.1
431
Jkt 214001
Rule title
Amended
Particulate Matter Concentration ......................................................
Propellant Combustion and Rocket Testing ....................................
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17JAR1.SGM
17JAR1
01/24/07
03/08/07
Submitted
08/24/07
08/24/07
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
On September 17, 2007, the submittal
of KCAPCD Rules 404.1 and 431 was
determined to meet the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V,
which must be met before formal EPA
review.
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
B. Are there other versions of these
rules?
A version of KCAPCD Rule 404.1 was
approved into the SIP on September 22,
1972, 37 FR 19812). There are no
versions of Rule 431 in the SIP.
C. What are the purposes of the new rule
and rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic
compounds, nitrogen oxides, particulate
matter, and other air pollutants which
harm human health and the
environment. These rules were
developed as part of local air districts’
programs to control these pollutants.
The purposes of the submitted
KCAPCD Rule 404.1 revisions relative to
the SIP rule are as follows:
• 404.1.II: Exemptions are added to
the rule for (a) equipment that combusts
only liquid fuels, gaseous fuels, or waste
gases and only emits combustion
contaminants, (b) rocket test stand
operation with less than 75 pounds of
propellant, and (c) fires set in
accordance with Rule 416.
• 404.1.III: The particulate emission
standard for existing sources is deleted
and the standard for new sources of 0.1
grains per cubic foot is extended to
include all sources.
• 404.1.IV: Test methods are added to
the rule.
The purposes of new KCAPCD Rule
431 are as follows:
• 431.I,II: The rule applicability and
definitions are provided.
• 431.III: Exemptions to the rule are
provided for (a) rocket test stand
operation with less than 75 pounds of
propellant, (b) emergency disposal by a
qualified bomb squad, (c) combustion
for fire training, (d) rocket propulsion
systems that do not require propellant,
and (e) rocket propellants composed
primarily of liquid fuels.
• 431.IV: A rocket test plan is
required for the combustion of rocket
propellants at a permitted test stand
unless (a) a rocket motor contains less
than 500 pounds of propellant or a
rocket engine contains less than 1000
pounds of propellant and (b) CARB has
designated the day of the test a
permissible burn day.
• 431.V: The requirements are
provided for a test plan that include a
toxic risk analysis and identification of
those meteorological conditions under
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jan 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
3193
which propellant testing will cause
insignificant risk to the nearest receptor.
• 431.VI,VII: The recordkeeping
requirements and compliance schedule
are provided.
EPA’s technical support document
(TSD) has more information about these
rules.
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.
II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action
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,
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),
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). SIP rules in moderate PM–10
nonattainment areas must require for
significant sources reasonably available
control measures (RACM), including
reasonably available control technology
(RACT) (see section 189(b)). KCAPCD
regulates a PM–10 attainment area (see
40 CFR part 81), so KCAPCD Rules
404.1 and 431 need not fulfill the
requirements of RACM/RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that
we used to help evaluate rules
consistently include the following:
• 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 rules meet the evaluation
criteria?
We believe that KCAPCD Rules 404.1
and 431 are consistent with the relevant
policy and guidance regarding
enforceability, RACM/RACT, and SIP
relaxations and should be given full
approval. 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 rules 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 rule. If we receive adverse
comments by February 19, 2008, 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 March 17,
2008. This will incorporate the rule into
the federally enforceable SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\17JAR1.SGM
17JAR1
3194
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 12 / Thursday, January 17, 2008 / Rules and Regulations
because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
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 March 17, 2008.
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).)
rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with RULES
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
14:51 Jan 16, 2008
Jkt 214001
Dated: November 23, 2007.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code
of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
I
PART 52—[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart F—California
2. Section 52.220 is amended by
adding paragraph (c)(351)(i)(D) to read
as follows:
I
§ 52.220
Identification of plan.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(351) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Kern County Air Pollution Control
District.
(1) Rule 404.1, adopted on April 18,
1972 and amended on January 24, 2007.
(i) Resolution No. 2007–001–01,
Reference No. Item 5, Adoption of
Amendments to Rules and Regulations
of the Kern County Air Pollution
Control District; to Wit: Rule 404.1.
(2) Rule 431, adopted on January 24,
2007 and amended on March 8, 2007.
(i) Resolution No. 2007–003–03,
Reference No. Item 3, Amendments to
Rules and Regulations of the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District;
To Wit: Rule 431 (Propellant
Combustion and Rocket Testing).
*
*
*
*
*
[FR Doc. E8–161 Filed 1–16–08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 62
[EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0943; FRL–8517–7]
Approval and Promulgation of State
Plans for Designated Facilities and
Pollutants; Missouri; Clean Air
Mercury Rule
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to
approve the State Plan submitted by
Missouri on May 18, 2007, and revisions
submitted on September 6, 2007. The
plan addresses the requirements of
EPA’s Clean Air Mercury Rule (CAMR),
promulgated on May 18, 2005, and
subsequently revised on June 9, 2006.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
EPA has determined that the submitted
State Plan fully meets the CAMR
requirements for Missouri.
CAMR requires States to regulate
emissions of mercury (Hg) from large
coal-fired electric generating units
(EGUs). CAMR establishes State budgets
for annual EGU Hg emissions and
requires States to submit State Plans to
ensure that annual EGU Hg emissions
will not exceed the applicable State
budget. States have the flexibility to
choose which control measures to adopt
to achieve the budgets, including
participating in the EPA-administered
CAMR cap-and-trade program. In the
State Plan that EPA is approving today,
Missouri has met the CAMR
requirements by electing to participate
in the EPA trading program.
DATES: This rule is effective on February
19, 2008.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R07–OAR–2007–0943. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov Web
site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the Internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through
https://www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Environmental Protection
Agency, Air Planning and Development
Branch, 901 North 5th Street, Kansas
City, Kansas 66101. The Regional
Office’s official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8 to 4:30
excluding Federal holidays. The
interested persons wanting to examine
these documents should make an
appointment with the office at least 24
hours in advance.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael Jay at (913) 551–7460 or by
e-mail at jay.michael@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
II. What Is the Regulatory History of CAMR?
III. What Are the General Requirements of
CAMR State Plans?
IV. How Can States Comply With CAMR?
V. Analysis of Missouri’s CAMR State Plan
Submittal
A. State Budgets
B. CAMR State Plan
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. What Action Is EPA Taking?
EPA is taking final action to approve
Missouri’s State Plan, submitted on May
E:\FR\FM\17JAR1.SGM
17JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 12 (Thursday, January 17, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3192-3194]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-161]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2007-1075; FRL-8506-2]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern
County 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
Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
particulate matter (PM-10) emissions from ambient dust, propellant
testing, and rocket testing. We are approving local rules under the
Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).
DATES: This rule is effective on March 17, 2008 without further notice,
unless EPA receives adverse comments by February 19, 2008. If we
receive such comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the
Federal Register to notify the public that this direct final rule will
not take effect.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-
2007-1075, by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow
the on-line instructions.
E-mail: steckel.andrew@epa.gov.
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 www.regulations.gov,
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 www.regulations.gov or e-mail.
www.regulations.gov is an ``anonymous access'' system, 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 www.regulations.gov 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, EPA Region IX, (415) 947-
4118, petersen.alfred@epa.gov.
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 new rule and 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 dates that the
rules were adopted or amended by the local air agency and submitted by
the California Air Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule
Local agency Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD..................................... 404.1 Particulate Matter 01/24/07 08/24/07
Concentration.
KCAPCD..................................... 431 Propellant Combustion and 03/08/07 08/24/07
Rocket Testing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 3193]]
On September 17, 2007, the submittal of KCAPCD Rules 404.1 and 431
was determined 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?
A version of KCAPCD Rule 404.1 was approved into the SIP on
September 22, 1972, 37 FR 19812). There are no versions of Rule 431 in
the SIP.
C. What are the purposes of the new rule and rule revisions?
Section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states to submit
regulations that control volatile organic compounds, nitrogen oxides,
particulate matter, and other air pollutants which harm human health
and the environment. These rules were developed as part of local air
districts' programs to control these pollutants.
The purposes of the submitted KCAPCD Rule 404.1 revisions relative
to the SIP rule are as follows:
404.1.II: Exemptions are added to the rule for (a)
equipment that combusts only liquid fuels, gaseous fuels, or waste
gases and only emits combustion contaminants, (b) rocket test stand
operation with less than 75 pounds of propellant, and (c) fires set in
accordance with Rule 416.
404.1.III: The particulate emission standard for existing
sources is deleted and the standard for new sources of 0.1 grains per
cubic foot is extended to include all sources.
404.1.IV: Test methods are added to the rule.
The purposes of new KCAPCD Rule 431 are as follows:
431.I,II: The rule applicability and definitions are
provided.
431.III: Exemptions to the rule are provided for (a)
rocket test stand operation with less than 75 pounds of propellant, (b)
emergency disposal by a qualified bomb squad, (c) combustion for fire
training, (d) rocket propulsion systems that do not require propellant,
and (e) rocket propellants composed primarily of liquid fuels.
431.IV: A rocket test plan is required for the combustion
of rocket propellants at a permitted test stand unless (a) a rocket
motor contains less than 500 pounds of propellant or a rocket engine
contains less than 1000 pounds of propellant and (b) CARB has
designated the day of the test a permissible burn day.
431.V: The requirements are provided for a test plan that
include a toxic risk analysis and identification of those
meteorological conditions under which propellant testing will cause
insignificant risk to the nearest receptor.
431.VI,VII: The recordkeeping requirements and compliance
schedule are provided.
EPA's technical support document (TSD) has more information about
these rules.
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). SIP rules in moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas must require for
significant sources reasonably available control measures (RACM),
including reasonably available control technology (RACT) (see section
189(b)). KCAPCD regulates a PM-10 attainment area (see 40 CFR part 81),
so KCAPCD Rules 404.1 and 431 need not fulfill the requirements of
RACM/RACT.
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate rules
consistently include the following:
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 rules meet the evaluation criteria?
We believe that KCAPCD Rules 404.1 and 431 are consistent with the
relevant policy and guidance regarding enforceability, RACM/RACT, and
SIP relaxations and should be given full approval. 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 rules 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 rule. If we
receive adverse comments by February 19, 2008, 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 March 17, 2008. This will incorporate the
rule 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.
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, 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),
[[Page 3194]]
because it approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard.
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 March 17, 2008. 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: November 23, 2007.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting 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)(351)(i)(D) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(351) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
(1) Rule 404.1, adopted on April 18, 1972 and amended on January
24, 2007.
(i) Resolution No. 2007-001-01, Reference No. Item 5, Adoption of
Amendments to Rules and Regulations of the Kern County Air Pollution
Control District; to Wit: Rule 404.1.
(2) Rule 431, adopted on January 24, 2007 and amended on March 8,
2007.
(i) Resolution No. 2007-003-03, Reference No. Item 3, Amendments to
Rules and Regulations of the Kern County Air Pollution Control
District; To Wit: Rule 431 (Propellant Combustion and Rocket Testing).
* * * * *
[FR Doc. E8-161 Filed 1-16-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P