[Federal Register: June 10, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 111)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 39659-39660]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr10jn02-20]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[CA255-0333; FRL-7228-1]
Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, San
Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve revisions to the San Joaquin
Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (SJVUAPCD) portion of the
California State Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern
visible emissions (VE) from many different sources of air pollution. We
are proposing to approve a local rule to regulate these emission
sources under the Clean Air Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). We
are taking comments on this proposal and plan to follow with a final
action.
DATE: Any comments must arrive by July 10, 2002.
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 document (TSD) at our Region IX office during normal
business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP revisions
at the following locations:
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814; and,
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990
East Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.
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.
A. Why was the rule submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements.
I. The State's Submittal
A. What Rule Did the State Submit?
Table 1 lists the rule addressed by this proposal with the dates
that it was adopted by SJVUAPCD and submitted by the California Air
Resources Board (CARB).
Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local agency Rule No. Rule title Adopted Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SJVUAPCD........................... 4101 Visible Emissions.................. 11/15/01 12/06/01
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 22, 2002, EPA found Rule 4101 met the completeness
criteria in 40 CFR part 51 appendix V. These criteria must be met
before formal EPA review may begin.
B. Are There Other Versions of This Rule?
EPA has received two prior versions of Rule 4101. SJVUAPCD adopted
the first version on December 17, 1992 and CARB submitted this rule to
EPA on September 28, 1994. SJVUAPCD adopted the second version on June
21, 2001 and CARB submitted the rule on October 30, 2001. EPA has not
acted on these versions of the rule. While we can act on only the most
recently submitted version listed in Table 1, we have reviewed
materials provided with these previous submittals.
C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule?
Rule 4101 limits the emissions of visible air contaminants of any
type; usually, but not always particulate matter from combustion
sources and industrial sites. Specifically, the rule prohibits
emissions beyond a defined opacity standard. Administratively, Rule
4101 replaces the individual county-level visible emissions rules now
in the SIP. The TSD has more information about Rule 4101 and the
county-level rules it replaces.
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 (1) and 193). The
SJVUAPCD regulates a PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so
Rule 4101 must fulfill RACM.
[[Page 39660]]
Guidance and policy documents that we used to help evaluate
enforceability and RACM requirements consistently include the
following:
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 VOC Regulation 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?
We believe Rule 4101 is consistent with the relevant policy and
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP relaxations. Prior
SJVUAPCD constituent county Rules 401, 402, and 403 are now
consolidated within a single rule format. The cumulative effect of the
changes to these rules through the creation and amendment of Rule 4101
does not weaken the pre-existing county-level rules' emission limits.
The 20% opacity limit is retained, limited exemptions are added, and an
exemption is removed. The TSD has more specific information on our
evaluation.
C. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rule
We have no recommendations at this time.
D. Public Comment and Final Action
Because EPA believes the submitted rule fulfills all relevant
requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in
section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public
on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new
information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final
approval action that will incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.
III. Background Information
A. Why Was This Rule Submitted?
Visible emission rules with their opacity standards are basic
components of an air quality regulation program and a general RACM
requirement for PM-10 regulations. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit regulations that control VE emissions. Table 2 lists
some of the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local
agency VE rules.
Table 2.--PM-10 Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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. Administrative Requirements
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposed 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 proposes to
approve 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 (Public Law 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 proposes to approve 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 proposed 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. 22 note) do not apply. This proposed 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.).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrous Oxide,
Hydrocarbons, Particulate Matter, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compound.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: May 2, 2002.
Keith Takata,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 02-14496 Filed 6-7-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M