Daily Rules, Proposed Rules, and Notices of the Federal Government
On December 17, 2002 we proposed to approve the PM-10 moderate area nonattainment plan and maintenance plan and the redesignation request for the Indian Wells Valley planning area (Indian Wells plan) submitted to EPA by the California Air Resources Board (ARB) on December 5, 2002.
(1) The Indian Wells Valley PM-10 nonattainment area has attained the PM-10 NAAQS based on three years of quality assured monitoring data;
(2) The emissions inventory in the plan is current, accurate and complete per CAA section 172(c)(3);
(3) Control measures that can be attributed as responsible for bringing the area into attainment meet the Reasonably Available Control Measures (RACM) requirement per CAA section 189(a)(1)(C);
(4) The air quality improvement in the area is due to permanent and enforceable measures;
(5) The plan adequately demonstrates future maintenance of the NAAQS for at least ten years into the future;
(6) The motor vehicle emission budgets contained in the plan meet the purposes of CAA section 176(c)(1) and the transportation conformity rule at 40 CFR part 93, subpart A; and
(7) The area's maintenance demonstration does not rely on nonattainment New Source Review (NSR) and, therefore, the area need not have a fully approved nonattainment NSR program prior to approval of the redesignation request.
EPA did not receive any public comments on the proposed rule.
With this final action, we are incorporating the moderate area plan and maintenance plan and redesignation request for the Indian Wells Valley Planning area, September 5, 2002, into the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). We are also approving the following measures, city ordinances, and commitments into the California SIP:
1. Fugitive Dust Control Plan for the Naval Air Weapons Station, China Lake, California (September 1, 1994).
2. Kern County 1990 Land Use Ordinance—Chapter 18.55 and Kern County Development Standards, Chapter III. This ordinance requires paving of streets for new subdivisions according to the County Development Standards.
3. City of Ridgecrest Municipal Code 1980 which requires paving of streets for new subdivisions.
4. ARB Executive Order G-125-295 which contains a commitment for future PM-10 air quality monitoring in the Indian Wells Valley planning area.
We are also approving the following rules as RACM with respect to control of process fugitive emissions, however, as indicated by the following dates, they are already included in the California SIP: Rule 401 “Visible Emissions,” November 29, 1993; Rule 404.1 “Particulate Matter Concentration, April 18, 1972; and Rule 405 “Particulate Matter Emission Rate,” July 18, 1983. In addition, we are approving as RACM in the Indian Wells area the paving of unpaved roads between 1993 and the present
With this final action, the Indian Wells Valley PM-10 nonattainment area is redesignated to attainment for the 24-hour and annual PM-10 NAAQS. The CAA requirements of the NSR program are replaced by the Prevention of Significant Deterioration program pursuant to 40 CFR 52.21, per the delegation agreement between EPA and Kern County Air Pollution Control District dated August 12, 1999.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this final 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 final 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). It 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
This final 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 final 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 final 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 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 final rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
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 July 7, 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).)
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(306) The following plan was submitted on December 5, 2002, by the Governor's designee.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Kern County Air Pollution Control District.
(B) California Air Resources Board, California.
42 U.S.C. 7401