[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 17, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37151-37153]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-17702]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA032-0241a; FRL-7001-2]


Revisions to the California State Implementation Plan, Kern 
County Air Pollution Control District, Monterey Bay Unified Air 
Pollution District, Modoc County Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
Kern County Air Pollution Control District (KCAPCD), Modoc County Air 
Pollution Control District (MCAPCD), and Monterey Bay Unified Air 
Pollution District (MBUAPCD) portions of the California State 
Implementation Plan (SIP). These revisions concern visible emissions 
(VE) from many different sources of air pollution. We are approving 
local rules that regulate these emission sources under the Clean Air 
Act as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

DATES: This rule is effective on September 17, 2001 without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by August 16, 2001. If we 
receive such comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register to notify the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

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 documents (TSDs) at our Region IX office during 
normal business hours. You may also see copies of the submitted SIP 
revisions at the following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air Docket (6102), Ariel Rios 
Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington D.C. 20460;
California Air Resources Board, Stationary Source Division, Rule

[[Page 37152]]

Evaluation Section, 1001 ``I'' Street, Sacramento, CA 95814;
Kern County Air Pollution Control District, 2700 M Street, Suite 302, 
Bakersfield, CA 93301;
Modoc County Air Pollution Control, 202 West 4th Street, Alturas, CA 
96101; and,
Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution District, 24580 Silver Cloud Court, 
Monterey, CA 93940-6536.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jerald S. Wamsley, Rulemaking Office 
(AIR-4), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX, (415) 744-
1226.

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 is the purpose of the submitted rule revisions?
II. EPA's Evaluation and Action
    A. How is EPA evaluating the rules?
    B. Do the rules meet the evaluation criteria?
    C. EPA recommendations to further improve the rules.
    D. Public comment and final action.
III. Background Information
    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 we are approving with the dates that they 
were adopted by the local air agencies and submitted by the California 
Air Resources Board (CARB).

                                             Table 1.--Submitted Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Local agency                 Rule No.           Rule title              Adopted        Submitted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KCAPCD.................................          401  Visible Emissions.........        11/29/93         3/29/94
MCAPCD.................................          4.1  Visible Emissions.........         1/15/89        12/31/90
MBUAPCD................................          400  Visible Emissions.........         3/22/00         5/26/00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the following dates, these rule submittals were found to meet 
the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, appendix V: June 3, 1994, 
KCAPCD Rule 401; October 6, 2000, MBUAPCD Rule 400; and, February 28, 
1991, MCAPCD Rule 4.1. These criteria must be met before formal EPA 
review may begin.

B. Are There Other Versions of These Rules?

    There are versions of all of these rule within the SIP. In all 
cases, the submitted rule consolidates several SIP rules into a single 
rule format. The TSD for each rule provides a detailed discussion of 
each consolidation. Only MBUAPCD adopted and submitted prior versions 
of Rule 400. While we can act on only the most recently submitted 
version of Rule 400, we have reviewed materials provided with previous 
submittals.

C. What Is the Purpose of the Submitted Rule Revisions?

    Each of these rules limit the emissions of visible air contaminants 
of any type; usually, but not always particulate matter from combustion 
sources and industrial sites. Specifically, these rules prohibit 
emissions beyond a defined opacity standard. The TSD has more 
information about 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 meet Reasonably Available Control Measure (RACM) 
requirements for nonattainment areas (see section 189), and must not 
relax existing requirements (see sections 110(l) and 193). The KCAPCD 
regulates an PM nonattainment area (see 40 CFR part 81), so Rule 401 
must fulfill RACM. MBUAPCD and MCAPCD meet the PM standard and are not 
required to meet RACM requirements.
    We used the following guidance and policy documents to define our 
specific enforceability and RACT requirements:
    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 Cutpoints, Deficiencies, and Deviations; 
Clarification to Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register 
document,'' (Blue Book), notice of availability published in the May 
25, 1988 Federal Register.

B. Do the Rules Meet the Evaluation Criteria?

    We believe these rules are consistent with the relevant policy and 
guidance regarding enforceability, RACM, and SIP relaxations. KCAPCD 
and MBUAPCD rules contain agricultural exemptions that are narrowly 
construed by each district. Consequently, these exempted sources are a 
neglible source of emissions in each district. The TSDs have more 
information on our respective evaluations.

C. 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. In particular, MCAPCD has retained a 40% 
opacity standard. While MCAPCD need not meet the RACM 20% opacity 
standard given its PM attainment status, almost all air districts in 
California have adopted 20% opacity standard. This suggests that the 
standard is readily achievable and should be considered by MCAPCD.

D. Public Comment and Final Action

    As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of the Act, EPA is fully 
approving the submitted rules because we believe they fulfill all 
relevant requirements. We do not think anyone will object to this 
approval, so we are finalizing it without proposing it in advance. 
However, in the Proposed Rules section of this Federal Register, we are 
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted rules. If we 
receive adverse comments by August 16, 2001, we will publish a timely 
withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the direct 
final approval will not take effect and we will address the comments in 
a subsequent final action based on the proposal. If we do not receive 
timely adverse comments, the direct final approval will be effective 
without further notice on September 17, 2001. This will incorporate 
these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

III. Background Information

Why Were These Rules 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.

[[Page 37153]]



                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 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This 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 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 approves 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 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), nor will it 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), because it 
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 rule also is 
not subject to Executive Order 13045 (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. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 
of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing 
this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting 
errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with 
Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the 
takings implications of the rule in accordance with the ``Attorney 
General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and 
Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings'' issued under the executive order. 
This 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.).
    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. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 September 17, 2001. 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, Hydrocarbons, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 8, 2001.
Keith Takata,
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)(182)(i)(F)(4), (196)(i)(F)(4), and (279)(i)(B)(3), to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (182) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) * * *
    (4) Rule 4.1, adopted on January 15, 1989.
* * * * *
    (196) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (F) * * *
    (4) Rule 401, adopted on April 18, 1972 and amended on November 29, 
1993.
* * * * *
    (279) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (B) * * *
    (3) Rule 400, adopted July 1, 1969 and amended on March 22, 2000.

[FR Doc. 01-17702 Filed 7-16-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P