[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 234 (Monday, December 7, 1998)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67419-67422]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-32417]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 211-0105; FRL-6195-8]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, San Diego Air Pollution Control 
District and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action on revisions to the 
California State Implementation Plan. The revisions concern rules from 
the following districts: San Diego Air Pollution Control District 
(SDAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District (VTCAPCD). 
The rules control particulate matter (PM) emissions related to visible 
emissions and abrasive blasting, respectively. This approval action 
will incorporate these rules into the federally approved SIP.

[[Page 67420]]

The intended effect of approving these rules is to regulate emissions 
of PM in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act). Thus, EPA is finalizing the approval 
of these revisions into the California SIP under provisions of the CAA 
regarding EPA action on SIP submittals and SIPs for national primary 
and secondary ambient air quality standards.

DATES: This rule is effective on February 5, 1999 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives relevant adverse comments by January 6, 
1999. If EPA receives such comments, then it will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register informing the public that this rule 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region 
IX office listed below. Copies of the rules and EPA's evaluation report 
for the rules are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX 
office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rules are 
available for inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105
Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), 401 ``M'' Street, 
S.W., Washington, DC 20460
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812
San Diego Air Pollution Control District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San 
Diego, CA 92123-1096
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 702 County Square Drive, 
Ventura, CA 93003

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Irwin, Rulemaking Office, AIR-4, 
Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-1903.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

    The rules being approved into the California SIP include: SDAPCD 
Rule 50, Visible Emissions and VTCAPCD Rule 74.1, Abrasive Blasting. 
These rules were submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA 
on June 23, 1998 and January 28, 1992, respectively.

II. Background

    On 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 or pre-amended Act), that included the San 
Diego Air Basin (West portion of San Diego County) (43 FR 8964; 40 CFR 
81.305). On July 1, 1987 (52 FR 24672) EPA replaced the TSP standards 
with new PM standards applying only to PM up to 10 microns in diameter 
(PM-10).1 On November 15, 1990, amendments to the 1977 CAA 
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)(iii) of the 
Act were designated unclassifiable by operation of law. The San Diego 
Air Basin and Ventura County were not among the areas designated 
unclassifiable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On July 18, 1997 EPA promulgated revised and new standards 
for PM-10 and PM-2.5 (62 FR 38651). EPA has not yet established 
specific plan and control requirements for the revised and new 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of updating the California SIP, the State of California 
submitted many PM-10 rules for incorporation into the California SIP on 
June 23, 1998 and January 28, 1992, including the rules being acted on 
in this document. This document addresses EPA's direct-final action for 
SDAPCD Rule 50, Visible Emissions, and VTCAPCD Rule 74.1, Abrasive 
Blasting. SDAPCD adopted Rule 50 on August 13, 1997. VTCAPCD adopted 
Rule 74.1 on November 12, 1991. These submitted rules were found to be 
complete on August 25, 1998 and April 3, 1992, respectively, pursuant 
to EPA's completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51 
Appendix V 2 and are being finalized for approval into the 
SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA adopted the completeness criteria on February 16, 1990 
(55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, 
revised the criteria on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SDAPCD Rule 50 is a generally applicable rule that controls visible 
emissions from a variety of sources. VTCAPCD Rule 74.1 controls 
emissions from abrasive blasting. PM emissions can harm human health 
and the environment. These rules were originally adopted as part of 
SDAPCO's and VTCAPCD's efforts to maintain the National Ambient Air 
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for PM-10. The following is EPA's evaluation 
and final action for these rules.

III. EPA Evaluation and Action

    In determining the approvability of a PM-10 rule, EPA must evaluate 
the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and EPA 
regulations, as found in section 110 and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements 
for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of Implementation Plans). EPA 
must also ensure that rules are enforceable and strengthen or maintain 
the SIP's control strategy.
    There is currently no version of VTCAPCD Rule 74.1, Abrasive 
Blasting, in the SIP. The submitted rule includes the following 
provisions:
     A Ringlemann 1 (20 percent opacity) standard applies to 
abrasive blasting conducted within a permanent building;
     A Ringlemann 2 (40 percent opacity) standard applies to 
abrasive blasting conducted outside of a permanent building;
     All abrasive blasting operations must be conducted within 
a permanent building with certain exceptions;
     Abrasives used for dry outdoor blasting must be certified 
by the California Air Resources Board to meet percent by weight 
material standards. Otherwise, wet abrasive blasting, hydroblasting or 
vacuum blasting must be used with certain exceptions.
    On September 28, 1981, EPA approved into the SIP a version of Rule 
50 that had been adopted by SDAPCD prior to this date.
    SDAPCD's submitted Rule 50, Visible Emissions, includes the 
following significant changes from the current SIP:
     Adds source-specific exemptions;
     Relaxes the standard for asphalt plant drop zone 
discharges from Ringlemann 1 (20% opacity) to Ringlemann 2 (40% 
opacity);
     Adds a specific provision for diesel pile-driving hammers 
that relaxes the applicable Ringlemann 1 standard not to exceed three 
minutes per hour to a Ringlemann 1 standard not to exceed four minutes 
during the driving of a single pile or, when kerosene fuel, smoke-
suppressing fuel additives and synthetic lubricating oil are used, a 
Ringlemann 2 standard not to exceed four minutes during the driving of 
a single pile;
     Relaxes the standard for discharges from asphalt paving 
equipment with an application temperature specification of 320 degrees 
Fahrenheit or higher and pavement rehabilitation equipment from 
Ringlemann 1 to Ringlemann 2;
     Relaxes the standard for discharges from the operation, 
maintenance or testing of fire fighting training units used exclusively 
for the purpose of shipboard fire fighting training from Ringlemann 1 
to Ringlemann 2.
    While some provisions are being relaxed, EPA believes these 
relaxations are de minimis and do not violate section 110(l) of the 
Clean Air Act. EPA has evaluated the submitted rules and has determined 
that they are consistent with the CAA, EPA regulations, and

[[Page 67421]]

EPA policy. Therefore, SDAPCD Rule 50, Visible Emissions, and VTCAPCD 
Rule 74.1, Abrasive Blasting, are being approved under section 
110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting the requirements of section 110(a). A 
more detailed evaluation can be found in EPA's evaluation report for 
these rules.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future implementation 
plan. Each request for revision to the state implementation plan shall 
be considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because the 
Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no 
adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this 
Federal Register publication, EPA is publishing a separate document 
that will serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should 
relevant adverse comments be filed. This rule will be effective 
February 5, 1999 without further notice unless the Agency receives 
relevant adverse comments by January 6, 1999.
    If the EPA receives such comments, then EPA will publish a timely 
withdrawal informing the public that the rule will not take effect. All 
public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this rule. Any parties interested in commenting on 
this rule should do so at this time. If no such comments are received, 
the public is advised that this rule will be effective on February 5, 
1999 and no further action will be taken on the proposed rule.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 12875

    Under Executive Order 12875, Enhancing the Intergovernmental 
Partnership, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not required by 
statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or tribal 
government, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary 
to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those governments, or 
EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 12875 requires EPA to provide to the Office of 
Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected State, local and tribal 
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of any written 
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, Executive Order 12875 
requires EPA to develop an effective process permitting elected 
officials and other representatives of State, local and tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates.'' 
Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable duties on these 
entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13045

    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 E.O. 
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 E.O. 13045 because it is 
does not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13084 
requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a 
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature 
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. 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 final 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 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 of state action. 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. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 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 
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; 
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205,

[[Page 67422]]

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 promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of 
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in 
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves 
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.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    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. This rule is not a 
``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    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 February 5, 1999. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Particulate matter.

    Note: Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of California was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: November 20, 1998.
Laura Yoshii,
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 paragraphs (c)(187)(i)(B)(2) 
and (256)(i)(B)(1) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (187) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (2) Rule 74.1, adopted on November 12, 1991.
* * * * *
    (256) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) San Diego County Air Pollution Control District.
    (1) Rule 50, adopted on August 13, 1997.

[FR Doc. 98-32417 Filed 12-4-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P