Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 8839

FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is 

not a significant regulatory action. 

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.). 

This rule 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 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 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 rule 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. 

The requirements of section 12(d) of 

the National Technology Transfer and 

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 

272) do not apply to this rule because 

it imposes no standards. 

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. 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 to Congress and the 

Comptroller General. However, section 

808 provides that any rule for which the 

issuing agency for good cause finds that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the agency promulgating 

the rule determines. 5 U.S.C. 808(2). 

EPA has made such a good cause 

finding, including the reasons therefor, 

and established an effective date of 

February 26, 2003. 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). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 28, 2003. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this rule for the 

purpose of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which 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, Intergovernmental 

regulations, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements.

Dated: February 3, 2003. 

Alexis Strauss, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 03–4378 Filed 2–25–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA273–0381a; FRL–7452–3] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Imperial County 

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final 

action to approve a revision to the 

Imperial County Air Pollution Control 

District (ICAPCD) portion of the 

California State Implementation Plan 

(SIP). The revision concerns a rule 

controlling particulate matter (PM) 

emissions from livestock feed yard 

operations. We are approving a local 

rule that regulates these emission 

sources under the Clean Air Act as 

amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on April 28, 

2003 without further notice, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by March 

28, 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: 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; and, Imperial 

County Air Pollution Control District, 

150 South 9th Street, El Centro, CA 

92243.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office 

(AIR–4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 947–4111.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA.

Table of Contents 

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What rule did the State submit? 

B. Are there other versions of this rule? 

C. What is the purpose of the submitted 

rule revisions? 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How is EPA evaluating the rule? 

B. Does the rule meet the evaluation 

criteria? 

C. EPA recommendations to further 

improve the rule. 

D. Public comment and final action. 

III. Background Information 

Why was this rule submitted?

IV. Stationary and Executive Order Reviews.

I. The State’s Submittal 

A. What Rule 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).

8840 Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1.—SUBMITTED RULE

Local agency Rule # Rule title Adopted Submitted 

ICAPCD ................................................................ 420 Livestock Feed Yards ........................................... 08/13/02 10/16/02 

EPA found this rule submittal met the 

completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, 

appendix V on December 3, 2002. These 

criteria must be met before formal EPA 

review may begin. 

B. Are There Other Versions of These 

Rules? 

There is a version of ICAPCD Rule 

420 in the SIP. On July 11, 2001, EPA 

gave a limited approval of Rule 420 and 

adopted it into the SIP. Simultaneously, 

EPA gave a limited disapproval to Rule 

420 (66 FR 36170). There have been no 

other submittals of Rule 420 prior to the 

one we are acting on today. 

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted 

Rule Revisions? 

ICAPCD Rule 420 is a rule designed 

to limit particulate matter (PM) 

emissions at livestock feedyard 

operations. The rule requires that feed 

yards limit their dust emissions using 

procedures to maintain soil moisture 

and remove manure. The TSD has more 

information about this rule. The 

following is EPA’s evaluation and final 

action for this rule. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation and Action 

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rule? 

Generally, SIP rules must be 

enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 

Act), must meet Reasonably Available 

Control Measure (RACM) requirements 

for nonattainment areas (see section 

189), and must not relax existing 

requirements (see sections 110(l) and 

193). The ICAPCD regulates an PM 

nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), 

so Rule 420 must fulfill RACM. 

We used the following guidance and 

policy documents to define our specific 

enforceability and RACT requirements: 

1. Portions of the proposed post-1987 

ozone and carbon monoxide policy that 

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 

24, 1987. 

2. ‘‘Issues Relating to Cutpoints, 

Deficiencies, and Deviations; 

Clarification to Appendix D of 

November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice,’’ (Blue Book), notice of 

availability published in the May 25, 

1988 Federal Register.

B. Does the Rule Meet the Evaluation 

Criteria? 

EPA’s July 2001 limited approval and 

disapproval identified the following 

deficiencies that must be remedied 

before we may grant full approval:

—The rule contains inappropriate 

Executive Officer discretion 

allowing for exceptions to 

compliance with rule’s moisture 

content standard; 

—the rule does not have a definition of 

‘‘rainy period’’; and, 

—the rule lacks a test method to 

determine compliance with the 

moisture content standard.

Consequently, ICAPCD’s August 2002 

amendments revised the exceptions and 

test methods portions of the rule. An 

annual limited exception is provided at 

D.1. for up to 60 days providing an 

alternative dust control plan complies 

with Rule 401—Opacity and Rule 407—

Nuisance. At D.2. an exception to the 

maximum 40% soil moisture 

requirement is allowed during rainy 

period as defined in Rule 101—

Definitions. The test methods for 

compliance were detailed and expanded 

to prescribe how manure moisture 

content should be determined. 

As a result of these revisions, we 

believe Rule 420 is consistent with the 

relevant policy and guidance regarding 

enforceability and SIP relaxations. We 

are not reviewing the rule as a RACM 

measure, because Imperial County has 

yet to submit its moderate area PM plan 

for our review. Once we have received 

this PM plan and its supporting 

emissions inventory information, we 

will evaluate Rule 420 as a RACM in the 

context of this information. The TSD 

has more information on our rule 

evaluation. 

C. EPA Recommendations to Further 

Improve the Rules

EPA has no suggested 

recommendations. 

D. Public Comment and Final Action 

As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of 

the Act, EPA is fully approving the 

submitted rule because we believe it 

fulfills 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 March 28, 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 April 28, 

2003. This action will incorporate Rule 

420 into the federally enforceable SIP. 

III. Background Information 

Why Was This Rule Submitted? 

Imperial County is an area designated 

nonattainment for PM–10 and is 

classified as a moderate nonattainment 

area. Section 189(a) of the CAA requires 

moderate PM–10 nonattainment areas to 

adopt reasonably available control 

measures (RACM), including reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) for 

stationary sources of PM–10. Table 2 

lists some of the national milestones 

leading to the submittal of this local 

agency rule.

TABLE 2.—PM–10 NONATTAINMENT

MILESTONES

Date Event 

March 3, 1978 ......... EPA promulgated a list 

of total suspended 

particulate (TSP) 

nonattainment areas 

under the provisions 

of the 1977 Clean 

Air Act (1977 CAA), 

(43 FR 8964; 40 

CFR 81). 

July 1, 1987 ............. EPA replaced the TSP 

standards with new 

PM standards applying only to PM up to 

10 microns in diameter (PM–10). (52 FR 

24672). 

Federal Register / Vol. 68, No. 38 / Wednesday, February 26, 2003 / Rules and Regulations 8841

TABLE 2.—PM–10 NONATTAINMENT

MILESTONES—Continued

Date Event 

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. 

On the date of enactment of the 1990 

CAA Amendments, 

PM–10 areas meeting the qualifications 

of section 

107(d)(4)(B) of the 

Act were designated 

nonattainment by 

operation of law and 

classified pursuant 

to section 188(a). 

December 10, 1993 Section 189(a)(1)(C) 

requires that PM–10 

nonattainment areas 

implement all reasonably available 

control measures 

(RACM) by this date. 

IV. Stationary 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), 

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. 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 April 28, 2003. 

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: February 3, 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 paragraph (c)(302)(i)(A)(3), to 

read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * * 

(302) * * * 

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(3) Rule 420 adopted on November 11, 

1985, and amended on August 13, 2002.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 03–4376 Filed 2–25–03; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[VA085/086/089/102/103–5046a;

FRL–7455–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; 

Reorganization of and Revisions to 

Administrative and General Conformity 

Provisions; Documents Incorporated 

by Reference; Recodification of 

Existing SIP Provisions; Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).