Document ID: EPA-R09-OAR-2005-CA-0013-0004
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern County Air Pollution Control District
Posted Date: 2007-11-08T05:00Z

[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