[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 237 (Friday, December 10, 1999)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 69211-69213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-32076]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA-222-0198; FRL-6506-7]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; California 
State Implementation Plan Revision, South Coast Air Quality Management 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to disapprove revisions to the California 
State Implementation Plan (SIP). The revisions provide for the 
exemption of sources from visible emission limits in the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District. EPA has evaluated these revisions and 
is proposing to disapprove these revisions to the California SIP 
because the revisions are not consistent with applicable Clean Air Act 
(Act) requirements.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before December 27, 1999.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be submitted to Andrew Steckel at the Region 
IX office listed below. Copies of the rule and EPA's evaluation report 
for the rule are available for public inspection at EPA's Region IX 
office during normal business hours. Copies of the submitted rule 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, D.C. 20460
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 2020 ``L'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95812
South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, 
Diamond Bar, CA 91765

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia Bowlin, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 
75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415) 744-
1188.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability of EPA's Proposed Action

    This document addresses EPA's proposed disapproval of South Coast 
Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) Rule 401, Visible Emissions, 
as adopted by SCAQMD on September 11, 1998. SCAQMD Rule 401 was 
submitted by the California Air Resources Board to EPA on January 12, 
1999.
    This Federal Register action for the SCAQMD excludes the Los 
Angeles County portion of the Southeast Desert AQMA, otherwise known as 
the Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles County, which is now under 
the jurisdiction of the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control District 
as of July 1, 1997.1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The State has recently changed the names and boundaries of 
the air basins located within the Southeast Desert Modified AQMA. 
Pursuant to State regulation the Coachella-San Jacinto Planning Area 
is now part of the Salton Sea Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg. 
Sec. 60114); the Victor Valley/Barstow Region in San Bernardino 
County and the Antelope Valley Region in Los Angeles County are a 
part of the Mojave Desert Air Basin (17 Cal. Code. Reg. Sec. 60109). 
In addition, in 1996 the California Legislature established a new 
local air agency, the Antelope Valley Air Pollution Control 
District, to have the responsibility for local air pollution 
planning and measures in the Antelope Valley Region (California 
Health & Safety Code Sec. 40106).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Background of the State Submittal

    On January 29, 1985 EPA approved into the SIP a version of SCAQMD 
Rule 401, Visible Emissions, that had been adopted by SCAQMD on March 
2, 1984. Revisions to this rule were subsequently adopted on April 7, 
1989 and submitted to EPA on March 26, 1990. EPA did not act on the 
1990 submittal of Rule 401, which is now superseded by the January 12, 
1999 submittal.
    EPA found the January 12, 1999 submittal of SCAQMD Rule 401, 
Visible

[[Page 69212]]

Emissions, to be complete on March 19, 1999, pursuant to EPA's 
completeness criteria that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix 
V.2
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The submitted version of SCAQMD Rule 401 includes the following 
revisions to the version of Rule 401 approved into the federally 
enforceable SIP in 1985:
     Adds temporary provision that establishes Ringelmann 2 
standard for commercial underfired charbroilers
     Adds operational requirements for diesel pile-driving 
hammers subject to Ringelmann 2 versus Ringelmann 1 standard
     Adds exemption for visible emission generating equipment 
used in training visible emission evaluators
     Adds exemption for ships performing emergency boiler 
shutdowns, tests required by governmental agencies, or maneuvers for 
safety purposes
     Adds exemption for agricultural operations
    The following provides a brief discussion of EPA's evaluation of 
SCAQMD Rule 401. A more detailed discussion of EPA's evaluation of the 
submitted rule can be found in the Technical Support Document (November 
1999), which is available from the EPA Region IX office.

III. EPA's Analysis of State's Submittal

    In determining the approvability of a submitted rule, EPA must 
evaluate the rule for consistency with the requirements of the CAA and 
EPA regulations, as found in section 110 and part D of the CAA and 40 
CFR part 51 (Requirements for Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of 
Implementation Plans). These provisions require that submitted rules 
are enforceable and strengthen or maintain the SIP's control strategy.
    EPA has evaluated SCAQMD Rule 401, Visible Emissions, as submitted 
on January 12, 1999, against the relevant requirements of the CAA and 
federal regulations. EPA has interpreted some aspects of the CAA and 
regulations in policy and guidance. EPA has identified several 
deficiencies with the State's submittal, as follows:

A. The State Has Not Demonstrated Compliance With Section 193 of the 
CAA

    For SIP provisions which EPA approved before November 15, 1990, 
section 193 prohibits SIP modifications applicable within a 
nonattainment area unless the modification ensures equivalent or 
greater emissions reductions of the pollutant for which the area is 
designated nonattainment.
    EPA approved an earlier version of SCAQMD Rule 401 as part of the 
SIP in 1985, prior to the enactment of the 1990 amendments to the Act 
(i.e., prior to November 15, 1990). SCAQMD has jurisdiction over the 
South Coast Air Basin and the Coachella Valley Planning Area, which are 
serious nonattainment areas for PM-10. Thus, the prohibition in section 
193 applies to Rule 401.
    SCAQMD states, in documents accompanying the 1999 submittal of Rule 
401, that the revisions to the rule would have no net effect on 
emissions of particulate matter. However, SCAQMD does not provide an 
analyis or any data to support this conclusion, and EPA does not agree 
with SCAQMD's conclusion with regard to the new exemption for 
agricultural operations. Under submitted Rule 401, agricultural sources 
which were subject to a 20% opacity limit are no longer subject to any 
visible emissions standard and may now emit up to 100% opacity.
    Increases in visible emissions correlate to increases in 
particulate matter emissions. Therefore, particulate matter emissions 
would likely increase from agricultural operations. For this reason, 
SCAQMD has failed to show that the SIP revision will insure equivalent 
or greater reductions of PM-10 as required by section 193 of the CAA.

B. The State Has Not Demonstrated Compliance With Section 110(l) of the 
CAA

    Section 110(l) of the Act provides that EPA cannot approve a 
revision to a SIP if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress, or 
any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 110(l) applies to 
SIP revisions affecting both attainment or unclassifiable areas, as 
well as nonattainment areas.
    As discussed above, the revisions to SCAQMD Rule 401, particularly 
the new exemption for agricultural operations, would likely allow 
increased particulate matter emissions into the air. Therefore, EPA 
cannot approve the revisions to Rule 401 unless SCAQMD provides an 
adequate demonstration that the SIP revisions will not interfere with 
attainment of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act.

C. The SIP Revision Does Not Meet the Requirements of Section 189 of 
the CAA

    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. Section 189(b) of the CAA requires serious nonattainment 
areas to adopt best available control measures (BACM), including best 
available control technology (BACT).
    As a serious PM-10 nonattainment area, SCAQMD must apply the 
requirements for RACT and BACT to stationary sources of PM-10. EPA 
believes that the requirement to implement RACT and BACT would preclude 
broadly exempting agricultural sources of particulate matter from 
visible emissions limits, where such exemption would likely result in 
increased particulate matter emissions. Therefore, EPA finds the 
submitted revisions to SCAQMD Rule 401 to be inconsistent with the 
requirements of CAA section 189.

III. Proposed Action

    For the reasons discussed above, EPA is proposing to disapprove 
California's January 12, 1999 submittal of SCAQMD Rule 401, Visible 
Emissions. The effect of this action, once final, will be that the 
version of Rule 401 that was approved by EPA into the SIP in 1985 will 
remain in the federally enforceable SIP. Specifically, this means that 
agricultural operatons will be subject to federally enforceable 20% 
opacity limits. Because the 1985 SIP-approved Rule 401 will remain 
federally enforceable, this disapproval action does not trigger 
sanctions or FIP clocks under section 179 of the CAA.
    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.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Order 12612, Federalism, and Executive

[[Page 69213]]

Order 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 Executive 
Order 13132 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 proposed 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. 
Thus, the requirements of section 6 of Executive Order 13132 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 
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.

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 
proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities 
of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 
3(b) of Executive Order 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 proposed rule will not have a significant impact on 
a substantial number of small entities because disapprovals of SIP 
revisions under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air 
Act do not affect any existing requirements applicable to small 
entities. Any existing Federal requirements will remain in place. 
Federal disapproval of the State SIP submittal will not affect State-
enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal would not 
impose any new Federal requirements. Therefore, I certify that this 
action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities.

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, 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 proposed disapproval action 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. The proposed disapproval will 
not change existing requirements and imposes no new requirements. 
Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or tribal 
governments, or to the private sector, result from this proposed 
action.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    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 24, 1999.
Laura Yoshii,
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 99-32076 Filed 12-9-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P