[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 7 (Wednesday, January 10, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 1927-1930]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-696]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 169-0265; FRL-6931-9]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Imperial 
County Air Pollution Control District, San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 
Pollution Control District, and Ventura County Air Pollution Control 
District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of 
a revision to the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
(VCAPCD) portion of the California State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
concerning volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from soil 
decontamination operations. We are also proposing full approval of 
revisions to the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 
District (SJVUAPCD) and Ventura County Air Pollution Control District 
(VCAPCD) portions of the California State SIP concerning VOC emissions 
from municipal solid waste disposal sites and oil-effluent water 
separators. We are proposing action on local rules that 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.

DATES: Any comments must arrive by February 9, 2001.

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.
    You can inspect copies of the submitted rule revisions and EPA's 
technical support documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted rule 
revisions at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington DC 20460.
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule 
Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814.
Imperial County Air Pollution Control District, 150 South Ninth Street, 
El Centro, CA 92243.
San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District, 1990 East 
Gettysburg Street, Fresno, CA 93726.
Ventura County Air Pollution Control District, 669 County Square Drive, 
2nd Floor, Ventura, CA 93003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Al Petersen, Rulemaking Office (AIR-
4), Air Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, 75 
Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, (415) 744-1135.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ``we,'' ``us'' and 
``our'' refer to EPA.

Table of Contents

I. The State's Submittal
    A. What rules did the State submit?
    B. Are there other versions of these rules?
    C. What are the changes in the submitted rules?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action.
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. What are the rule deficiencies?
    D. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
    E. Proposed action and public comment.
III. Background information.
    A. Why were these rules submitted?
IV. Administrative Requirements

I. The State's Submittal

A. What Rules Did the State Submit?

    Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal with the dates 
that they were adopted by local air agencies and submitted by the 
California Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                            Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Local Agency                  Rule #                Rule title               Adopted    Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICAPCD...................................         416  Oil-Effluent Water Separators....    09/14/99    05/26/00
SJVUAPCD.................................        4642  Solid Waste Disposal Sites.......    04/16/98    09/29/98
VCAPCD...................................       74.29  Soil Decontamination Operations..    10/10/95    03/26/96
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 1928]]

    On October 6, 2000, January 26, 1999, and May 15, 1996, 
respectively, these rule submittals were found to meet the completeness 
criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V, which must be met before formal 
EPA review.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    We approved a version of ICAPCD Rule 416 into the ICAPCD portion of 
the SIP as rule 416, Oil-Effluent Water Separators, on January 27, 1981 
(46 FR 8472).
    There are no previous versions of SJVUAPCD Rule 4642 in the SIP, 
although the District adopted an earlier version of this rule on July 
20, 1995 and CARB submitted it to us on October 18, 1995. While we can 
act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed 
materials provided with previous submittal.
    There are no previous versions of VCAPCD Rule 74.29 in the SIP.

C. What Are the Changes in the Submitted Rules?

    Submitted ICAPCD Rule 416 has the following changes:
     The requirement of 90% by weight or greater reduction in 
vapor emission for a vapor recovery system was added.
     Compliance test methods, periodic inspection requirements, 
and a record retention period were added.
    Submitted SJVUAPCD Rule 4642 has the following requirements for a 
solid waste disposal site gas collection system:
     Must maintain surface concentration of total organic 
compounds of 1,000 ppmv (as methane) or less.
     Must maximize landfill gas extracted while preventing 
overdraw.
     Must achieve 98 percent by weight VOC destruction or 
outlet concentration of 20 ppmv (as methane) or less.
    Submitted VCAPCD Rule 74.29 has the following requirements:
     Prohibits soil aeration that emits VOC in concentration 
greater or equal to 50 ppmv (as hexane).
     Establishes VOC emission limits on gasses vented from 
vapor extraction, bioremediation, or bioventing systems.
     Prohibits in situ bioventing or bioremediation systems 
that emit fugitive VOC in concentrations greater or equal to 50 ppmv 
(as hexane).
     Requires notification by owner prior to underground 
gasoline storage tank excavation.
     Requires the covering of soil exposed during tank 
excavation.
    There are numerous exemptions to the rule that are discussed in the 
TSD.
    The TSDs have more information about all of these rules.

II. EPA's Evaluation and Action

A. How Is EPA Evaluating the Rules?

    Generally, SIP rules must be enforceable (see section 110(a) of the 
Act), must require Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for 
major sources in nonattainment areas (see section 182(a)(2)(A)), and 
must not relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). 
ICAPCD regulates a transitional ozone nonattainment area, SJVUAPCD 
regulates a serious ozone nonattainment area, and VCAPCD regulates a 
severe ozone nonattainment area. (See 40 CFR part 81). Therefore, 
ICAPCD Rule 416, SJVUAPCD Rule 4642, and VCAPCD Rule 74.29 must fulfill 
RACT.
    Guidance and policy documents that we used to define specific 
enforceability and RACT requirements include the following:
     Portions of the proposed post-1987 ozone and carbon 
monoxide policy that concern RACT, 52 FR 45044, November 24, 1987.
     Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints, Deficiencies, 
and Deviations; Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 
Federal Register, (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the 
Federal Register (May 25, 1988).
     Model Volatile Organic Compound Rules for Reasonably 
Available Control Technology (June 1992).

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    These rules strengthen the SIP by establishing more stringent 
emission limits, by clarifying monitoring, recording and recordkeeping 
provisions, and by adding two rules that were previously not in the 
SIP. These rules are largely consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACT and SIP relaxations. Rule 
provisions which do not meet the evaluation criteria are summarized 
below and discussed further in the TSD.

C. What Are the Rule Deficiencies?

    The following provision in VCAPCD Rule 74.29 conflicts with section 
110 and part D of the Act and prevents full approval of the SIP 
revision:
     (Section C.4) This section provides for case-by-case 
exemptions by the Director from the 0.08 lb/hr allowable emission rate 
for vapor extraction or bioremediation, if the operator can demonstrate 
compliance with VCAPCD Rule 51, Nuisance. This exemption is deficient, 
because it does not specify replicable criteria for an exemption nor 
require equivalent emissions reduction for an exempted source.

D. EPA Recommendations To Further Improve the Rules

    The TSDs describe additional rule revisions that do not affect 
EPA's current action but are recommended for the next time the local 
agency modifies the rules.

E. Proposed Action and Public Comment

    As authorized in sections 110(k)(3) and 301(a) of the Act, EPA is 
proposing a limited approval of submitted VCAPCD Rule 74.29 to improve 
the SIP. If finalized, this action would incorporate the submitted rule 
into the SIP, including those provisions identified as deficient. This 
approval is limited because EPA is simultaneously proposing a limited 
disapproval of the rule under section 110(k)(3). If this disapproval is 
finalized, sanctions will be imposed under section 179 of the Act 
unless EPA approves subsequent SIP revisions that correct the rule 
deficiencies within 18 months. These sanctions would be imposed as 
described in 59 FR 39832 (August 4, 1994). A final disapproval would 
also trigger the federal implementation plan (FIP) requirement under 
section 110(c). Note that the submitted rule has been adopted by the 
VCAPCD, and EPA's final limited disapproval would not prevent the local 
agency from enforcing it.
    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is also 
proposing a full approval of ICAPCD Rule 416 and SJVUAPCD Rule 4642 to 
strengthen the SIP.
    We will accept comments from the public on these proposed actions 
for the next 30 days.

III. Background Information

A. Why Were These Rules Submitted?

    VOCs help produce ground-level ozone and smog, which harm human 
health and the environment. Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states 
to submit regulations that control VOC emissions. Table 2 lists some of 
the national milestones leading to the submittal of these local agency 
VOC rules.

[[Page 1929]]



                Table 2.--Ozone Nonattainment Milestones
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Date                                 Event
------------------------------------------------------------------------
March 3, 1978.....................  EPA promulgated a list of ozone
                                     nonattainment areas under the Clean
                                     Air Act as amended in 1977. 43 FR
                                     8964; 40 CFR 81.305.
May 26, 1988......................  EPA notified Governors that parts of
                                     their SIPs were inadequate to
                                     attain and maintain the ozone
                                     standard and requested that they
                                     correct the deficiencies (EPA's SIP-
                                     Call). See section 110(a)(2)(H) of
                                     the pre-amended Act.
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.
May 15, 1991......................  Section 182(a)(2)(A) requires that
                                     ozone nonattainment areas correct
                                     deficient RACT rules by this date.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled 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.

C. 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 OMB 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 proposed 
rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, entitled 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 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, 
because it merely acts on 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 
proposed 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 SIP actions under section 
110 and subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply act on requirements that the State is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP action 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).

[[Page 1930]]

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 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. This proposed Federal action acts 
on 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. 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.
    EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to today's proposed action 
because it does not require the public to perform activities conducive 
to the use of VCS.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Volatile organic compound.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: December 26, 2000.
Felicia Marcus,
Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 01-696 Filed 1-9-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U