[Federal Register: November 8, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 216)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 63107-63110]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08no07-10]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0013, FRL-8489-7]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern
County Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
[[Page 63108]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing full approval of revisions to the Kern
County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). EPA is also finalizing full
disapproval of a revision to the KCAPCD portion of the California SIP.
These actions were proposed in the Federal Register on December 19,
2006 and concern permitting requirements. Under authority of the Clean
Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act), this action directs
California to replace the SIP rules with the approved rules and to
retain in the SIP the present SIP version of the disapproved rule.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective on December 10, 2007.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0013
for this action. The index to the docket is available electronically at
http://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: Manny Aquitania, Permits Office (AIR-
3), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 972-3977,
aquitania.manny@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and
``our'' refer to EPA.
I. Proposed Action
On December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75916), EPA proposed to approve the
rules in Table 1 that were submitted for incorporation into the
California SIP. We proposed to approve these rules, because they met
all requirements.
Table 1.--Submitted Rules Proposed for Full Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD................................... 201 Permits Required................. 05/02/96 07/23/96
KCAPCD................................... 202.1 Experimental Research Operations. 05/02/96 07/23/96
KCAPCD................................... 209.1 Permit Conditions................ 05/02/96 07/23/96
KCAPCD................................... 210.2 Standards for Permits to Operate. 05/02/96 07/23/96
KCAPCD................................... 210.5 Visibility Protection............ 05/02/96 07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75916), EPA proposed to disapprove the
following rule in Table 2 that was submitted for incorporation into the
California SIP.
Table 2.--Submitted Rule Proposed for Full Disapproval
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Amended Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD.................................... 203 Transfer......................... 05/02/96 07/23/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We proposed to disapprove this rule because a rule provision
conflicts with section 110 and part D of the Act. This provision is as
follows:
The revision to Rule 203 that allows the transfer of a
permit from one location to another is prohibited, because permitting
requirements may be different at different locations. A New Source
Review must be performed upon changing location. See 40 CFR part 51,
sections 165-166.
Our proposed action contains more information on the basis for this
rulemaking and on our evaluation of the submittal.
II. Public Comments and EPA Responses
EPA's proposed action provided a 30-day public comment period.
During this period, we did not receive any comments.
III. EPA Action
No comments were submitted that change our assessment of the rules
as described in our proposed action. Therefore, as authorized in
section 110(k)(3) of the CAA, EPA is finalizing a full approval of
submitted KCAPCD Rules 201, 202.1, 209.1, 210.2, and 210.5.
We are also finalizing a full disapproval of submitted KCAPCD Rule
203. This action will retain the present SIP-approved rule in the SIP.
Sanctions will not be imposed as described in CAA section 179 and 40
CFR 52.30-52.32, because the present SIP-approved rule fulfills CAA
requirements.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory
Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
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.)
C. 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 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 approve 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.
Moreover, due
[[Page 63109]]
to the nature of the Federal-State relationship, under the Clean Air
Act preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute Federal
inquiry into the economic reasonableness The Clean Air Act 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. 10(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Under sections 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
the 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 proposed 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 proposes to
approve 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.
E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 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 Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13132, because it
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. Thus, the
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this
rule.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This proposed rule does not
have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not
apply to this rule.
EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule
from tribal officials.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental
Health Risks and Safety Risks
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
Executive Order 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 Executive Order 13045 because it does
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or
safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions
Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a
significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. 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. The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action.
Today's action does not require the public to perform activities
conducive to VCS.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: October 5, 2007.
Laura Yoshii,
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 paragraphs (c)(239)(i)(C)(3 )
and (4 ) to read as follows:
[[Page 63110]]
Sec. 52.220 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(239) * * *
(i) * * *
(C) * * *
(3 ) Rule 201, adopted on April 18, 1972 and amended on May 2,
1996.
(4 ) Rules 202.1, 209.1, 210.2, and 210.5, adopted on December 15,
1980, April 5, 1982, December 28, 1976, and November 18, 1985,
respectively, and amended on May 2, 1996.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.242 is amended by adding paragraph (a)(5) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.242 Disapproved rules and regulations.
(a) * * *
* * * * *
(5) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
(i) Rule 203, Transfer, submitted on July 23, 1996 and amended on
May 2, 1996. Rule 203, submitted on June 30, 1972, is retained.
[FR Doc. E7-21815 Filed 11-7-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P